1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 404D6C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 10:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C3840246
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 10:43:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id X9vifcAMlSNR
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 10:43:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40140.protonmail.ch (mail-40140.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.140])
by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91D1F40105
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 10:43:01 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:42:49 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1621334578;
bh=7sEUH1n1P32/xJYUeiEve71G81SDduwAmFZ6c0H4mlM=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=bMvisNqEeO0RuK7C/ArkKYd3wfNcvDzn+h3QTYBFHdc+bQJmFmhJMxPBsbEk1FSlf
JEbFAjSWgk4k0IIZCjnxVg+iCUuqALdbfbefOxFVDXz53U7PiZ1QkKl9Dxc9o6XWrV
AE6mTEdVILIREpYgd443bykMRfLHrTBEYLmrGbek=
To: Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <hASF-iYeGlsq3EhNWY0EWhk5S8R1Wwn534cWsrwLInd8K7f7bUDCAP4GgTj8_ZNsKtgv8y09GJovcS6KXhYRHODC5N_88fvCAF1Z-r2TUFg=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ4-pEBYJNuNMUCt5J5DbKU4RC9JXcO7gZdKh2Vq6PHCmddaeg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com>
<CAJowKg+QM94g+JcC-E-NGD4J9-nXHWt5kBw14bXTAWaqZz=bYw@mail.gmail.com>
<CALeFGL02d9NVp+yobrtc2g6k2nBjBj0Qb==3Ukkbi8C_zb5qMg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD5xwhi1G3Jj3FAAWQP3BXTK34ugDQY32hq-cQnt8Ny8JP4eGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJowKgJ1x5YKWS1S-sgdU3Tn+hPT64iiUCwG8qh-JS0xqS7ieA@mail.gmail.com>
<30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com>
<CAJ4-pEBYJNuNMUCt5J5DbKU4RC9JXcO7gZdKh2Vq6PHCmddaeg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:43:03 -0000
Good morning Zac,
> VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a two=
-step PoW:
>
> 1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being subject to di=
fficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of VDFs, mi=
ners are able show proof of work.
>
> 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block tak=
es 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjustments.
>
> As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced.
As I understand it, another weakness of VDFs is that they are not inherentl=
y progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are inherently=
progress-requiring).
Thus, a miner which focuses on improving the amount of energy that it can p=
ump into the VDF circuitry (by overclocking and freezing the circuitry), co=
uld potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation, possibly leading to =
even *worse* competition and even *more* energy consumption.
After all, if you can start mining 0.1s faster than the competition, that i=
s a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
