path: root/ce/15ccb982a7cbaa3be901e63918c0e7a5c55468

Return-Path: <mike@powx.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 735F6C0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 19 May 2021 14:07:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5470B4040A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 19 May 2021 14:07:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=powx-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id 75V9EIPhDQWN
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 19 May 2021 14:07:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yb1-xb29.google.com (mail-yb1-xb29.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b29])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B0C84044A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 19 May 2021 14:07:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb29.google.com with SMTP id e15so2504684ybc.10
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Wed, 19 May 2021 07:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=powx-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
 :cc; bh=Pz1yCGsczN6JVy+nvdibkmUR5IFsG8w59xg9XCSNekA=;
 b=hbxZy1AhRgxQbWOycNfiCiWIktbPt1dKz4+JxxzD2UTLGTMDrKnMIbPm/r8IcNgLdA
 SqdIzTHoKwoxxs8qTzJSsW7ToY1tW/4+J6GUdZpO/iccfklcKHncsfqBdXDeYSpM+pgN
 qu5ljzqVjcL1n4LGiKhHY9TcN/ZFPpQ3NNU+IOulemxSxvWXMRr9ujwLxDZfeIglN3rS
 aMi9vkqQNGD9l9bCoubT0rCXlgIoEHr61NwZWpnd6CF592JXABgWkaP9WkGaY/jXRQA4
 YdNgYIaaT9JU2lJ4EXjvUszSdE4feZ8agI9f0HDQOzVbsRyxSvo85BS13Nu7/SywK9EB
 3xiA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to:cc;
 bh=Pz1yCGsczN6JVy+nvdibkmUR5IFsG8w59xg9XCSNekA=;
 b=HcadtC8YIn7sWVcjyAMlLWIvOQlD+fadxhG52xdHk2UfflMN+mRJmV86KkNMhz/ikj
 UMU1BmINTrWv6VYdIT0ihktRe3cIu6TyoKE2DVu7HWdW8szAECbehenFhBZsA9dbyhKq
 SNCpU9s/LYO18TtTvoybFlvlusxGz5B4c+G1ErrAgMafbAPHHsrHY6TARPAeaNk8QXuV
 krz15UwMarloTbm9KQblr5g90BxxL39GCht98TJ5RVmy4/rMAaiTkK7s/9arl8NsjGYl
 A/XwRuSUGzVnOTz6G2SrZsjuHix/K47r4IPAptztZctOB25lfTHPkUNYBb1VW0pbmWk6
 x9gg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531t41fdvexIZdzg6Y4+LAfCmQjtTeUK8cyE+lMR2V5jCoKux5KV
 NA/CybC6wM36MwfeZhebFNYidndDRV5BQA4ceYHHFA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHr3weYPN9utQOpGJjHbWdbA0711BfH1nezaJxL2W7OFeOVhvfSkIES8d6ClP17n1bwYlVwM6ABrWVGAaDW10=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:d04f:: with SMTP id h76mr15286572ybg.261.1621433234235; 
 Wed, 19 May 2021 07:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <hASF-iYeGlsq3EhNWY0EWhk5S8R1Wwn534cWsrwLInd8K7f7bUDCAP4GgTj8_ZNsKtgv8y09GJovcS6KXhYRHODC5N_88fvCAF1Z-r2TUFg=@protonmail.com>
 <CAJ4-pECb9QSUDPax8SU+-KGwPgVju=YKax9eb-iRwAmZGcMcPg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJowKgJ3DOrtO+_XzoEnqQUQdge=zCopg2mvuy5F=RSeaVPJYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgJ3DOrtO+_XzoEnqQUQdge=zCopg2mvuy5F=RSeaVPJYQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michael Dubrovsky <mike@powx.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 10:07:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKy8i-17Snk7ZeTL_U8ULDm3S5fYRXf412p1NpS_6CTT4Fhm0A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f43ace05c2af57c6"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 May 2021 15:16:09 +0000
Cc: 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: Wed, 19 May 2021 14:07:17 -0000

--000000000000f43ace05c2af57c6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Folks, I suggest we keep the discussion to PoW, oPoW, and the BIP itself.
PoS, VDFs, and so on are interesting but I guess there are other threads
going on these topics already where they would be relevant.

Also, it's important to distinguish between oPoW and these other
"alternatives" to Hashcash. oPoW is a true Proof of Work that doesn't alter
the core game theory or security assumptions of Hashcash and actually
contains SHA (can be SHA3, SHA256, etc hash is interchangeable).

Cheers,
Mike

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:55 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> 1. i never suggested vdf's to replace pow.
>
> 2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working
> proof-of-burn protocol
>
> - vdfs used only for timing (not block height)
> - blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work
> - the required "work" per block would simply be a competition to
> acquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in
> advance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far
> future
> - the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the
> value gained from proof of work... without some of the security
> drawbacks
> - the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk
> losing their work in each block)
> - new burns can't be used
> - old burns age out (like ASICs do)
> - other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the
> properties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly.
>
> 3. i do believe it is *possible* that a "burned coin + vdf system"
> might be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space
> agreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun
> up, and a hard-fork could be initiated.
>
> 4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was
> possible that consensus was possible.  so no, this is not an "alt
> coin"
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood <zachgrw@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi ZmnSCPxj,
> >
> > Please note that I am not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, but
> solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant.
> >
> > Zac
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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 difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of
> VDFs, miners are able show proof of work.
> >> >
> >> > 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block
> takes 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
> inherently 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 pump into the VDF circuitry (by overclocking and freezing the
> circuitry), could 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 is a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> ZmnSCPxj
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>


-- 
Michael Dubrovsky
Founder; PoWx
www.PoWx.org <http://www.powx.org/>

--000000000000f43ace05c2af57c6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Folks, I suggest we keep the discussion to PoW, oPoW, and =
the BIP itself. PoS, VDFs, and so on are interesting but I guess there are =
other threads going on these topics already where they would be relevant.=
=C2=A0<div><br></div><div>Also, it&#39;s important=C2=A0to distinguish betw=
een oPoW and these other &quot;alternatives&quot; to Hashcash. oPoW is a tr=
ue Proof of Work that doesn&#39;t alter the core game theory or security as=
sumptions of Hashcash and actually contains SHA (can be SHA3, SHA256, etc h=
ash is interchangeable).</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Mike=C2=
=A0</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gma=
il_attr">On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:55 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev &lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quot=
e" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204)=
;padding-left:1ex">1. i never suggested vdf&#39;s to replace pow.<br>
<br>
2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working<br>
proof-of-burn protocol<br>
<br>
- vdfs used only for timing (not block height)<br>
- blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work<br>
- the required &quot;work&quot; per block would simply be a competition to<=
br>
acquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in<br>
advance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far<br>
future<br>
- the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the<br>
value gained from proof of work... without some of the security<br>
drawbacks<br>
- the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk<br>
losing their work in each block)<br>
- new burns can&#39;t be used<br>
- old burns age out (like ASICs do)<br>
- other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the<br>
properties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly.<br>
<br>
3. i do believe it is *possible* that a &quot;burned coin + vdf system&quot=
;<br>
might be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space<br>
agreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun<br>
up, and a hard-fork could be initiated.<br>
<br>
4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was<br>
possible that consensus was possible.=C2=A0 so no, this is not an &quot;alt=
<br>
coin&quot;<br>
<br>
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:zachgr=
w@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">zachgrw@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hi ZmnSCPxj,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Please note that I am not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, b=
ut solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Zac<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ZmnSCPxj@=
protonmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br=
>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Good morning Zac,<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by =
having a two-step PoW:<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; 1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being s=
ubject to difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property=
 of VDFs, miners are able show proof of work.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding=
 a block takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjus=
tments.<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced=
.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; As I understand it, another weakness of VDFs is that they are not =
inherently progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are i=
nherently progress-requiring).<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Thus, a miner which focuses on improving the amount of energy that=
 it can pump into the VDF circuitry (by overclocking and freezing the circu=
itry), could potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation, possibly le=
ading to even *worse* competition and even *more* energy consumption.<br>
&gt;&gt; After all, if you can start mining 0.1s faster than the competitio=
n, that is a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*=
.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Regards,<br>
&gt;&gt; ZmnSCPxj<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"ltr"=
 class=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div styl=
e=3D"font-size:small">Michael Dubrovsky<br></div><div style=3D"font-size:sm=
all">Founder; PoWx</div><div style=3D"font-size:small"><a href=3D"http://ww=
w.powx.org/" style=3D"color:rgb(17,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">www.PoWx.org<=
/a></div></div></div></div></div>

--000000000000f43ace05c2af57c6--