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
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8EBC000A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:48:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5644183AA7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:48:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.3
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8,
DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25,
FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id cutL5N7m2LHw
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:48:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9F8B832C6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:48:47 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id h15so1425846pfv.2
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=PznL/QrWHEc64Adt3HM5CI815N9al3ttwRmWElwfpKA=;
b=kHkwc5t5UpAAK+yCXCm9a64KvnuOAi5b1aef4q4g2HPj34aDYQgDNP/ks9fc8oPBAt
Mu8MF0nvPqHmJ1nsLkNnTGjM4q7NNsVmDsKtm3CBh/Qh5LmixOk0IBEe8k57QgbS8wiQ
UWHikKdN7DdM1RL7DTE5xoZdeucWBQSqFA749SjtfpYL3mqFe6FxD5Uf2wzBULmwdE37
8k1QZpfl2BXMg3OYH/3A6EYydujFKWN+1XPivrPvBTf76jW9IaHl+AXTfHDcC/UP+ShE
v72OdB90RmkUEw/sDkj/2NqFNVS2DvwfHhx/cSx1qSm6p+a9IrkEPjPE5+UcPeN2jZwt
rjpw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=PznL/QrWHEc64Adt3HM5CI815N9al3ttwRmWElwfpKA=;
b=RGkQB6mJZqQkOid5EiqUBYGSyZDx71UdFntKh/S9HbtSwtD0sZTaORsBRcTXIAJsL9
MZinfwGA0PIPbtZi7GDciH3UAnGNJWoSwSPas6q6q5Hg+K3Wn3NvM6qzarKm2H4q/yU6
YM63BEhqgpiZWZw3W0TYQdHDUzP1zcse6TH/eSXFrDogCiTrqcODmJ+rkj5uCZWVQVEU
1sElmYqQ2WcAxJ4QYoWc+lWTu0Sl5RLJd09UN3e0kKnWlhhVni7thzamLWxMHKW3jGEz
9RL/2U7MVK6qRk++ZOcyOGpX6E7TOZqlF+YiwoTs+0aPMoN+HXwoF3o0A3gKHTPYofOi
9XJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530SnLjwuiEKjZoCjuj+22oCTVcxMf3ifbhPgYOqGd9ekhOorxaF
gqWCmrZsaM7KpgkUIvHZArfaY/ciGEuUvNNSHpkXrse33hRQjKrFGw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwejK01K004TdPvTyOdlsTtw4Fzncx7bGwUP144vUXd/G6q648NhGbamribh32kjRVpsS+rjaCIOLOOu94dtzQ=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:908c:0:b029:209:aacd:d8b with SMTP id
i12-20020aa7908c0000b0290209aacd0d8bmr9466500pfa.74.1618606126875; Fri, 16
Apr 2021 13:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 16:48:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKgJNefXZTCJk_EK4JC7uPKsTrGv=yUROpjL_7GGbfNrrvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:08:06 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Gradual transition to an alternate proof without a
hard fork.
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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 20:48:52 -0000
Not sure of the best place to workshop ideas, so please take this with
a grain of salt.
Starting with 3 assumptions:
- assume that there exists a proof-of-burn that, for Bitcoin's
purposes, accurately-enough models the investment in and development
of ASICs to maintain miner incentive.
- assume the resulting timing problem "how much burn is enough to keep
blocks 10 minutes apart and what does that even mean" is also...
perfectly solvable
- assume "everyone unanimously loves this idea"
The transition *could* look like this:
- validating nodes begin to require proof-of-burn, in addition to
proof-of-work (soft fork)
- the extra expense makes it more expensive for miners, so POW slowly drops
- on a predefined schedule, POB required is increased to 100% of the
"required work" to mine
Given all of that, am I correct in thinking that a hard fork would not
be necessary?
IE: We could transition to another "required proof" - such as a
quantum POW or a POB (above) or something else .... in a back-compat
way (existing nodes not aware of the rules would continue to
validate).
|
