path: root/e8/63e5d75a57e5c0fe470f667506293ade6004d2

Return-Path: <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E4AC0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri,  7 May 2021 23:20:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19B841997
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri,  7 May 2021 23:20:03 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3,
 SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Tb0q5_EIt7Nl
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri,  7 May 2021 23:20:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 680E64188A
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri,  7 May 2021 23:20:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-io1-f48.google.com (mail-io1-f48.google.com
 [209.85.166.48]) (authenticated bits=0)
 (User authenticated as jlrubin@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
 by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 147NK0FO028086
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT)
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Fri, 7 May 2021 19:20:00 -0400
Received: by mail-io1-f48.google.com with SMTP id z24so9479309ioi.3
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 07 May 2021 16:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533tAKMKQDK4nSIA3LT0X/Xr7SqQ6tORf/NEwDtm245bftPAtt7E
 Q1X1Wi01G1FW6BcKIgcla5dgiXMXMlO1GKbozoU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyujsGJQi2F9RGdOTfUXoaVsjzSNVrP6N4YMu6KpQB5hkqnIxOwoRY73jF50fKGKd4bC9MwDUaoVSNf/evwcTs=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:948e:: with SMTP id v14mr9371413ioj.92.1620429600195; 
 Fri, 07 May 2021 16:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com>
From: Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 16:19:48 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5xwhi9fxgzYXCsWLUYJ1Bw7Txxnnsm46ySnJTEAiDxqg9UQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5xwhi9fxgzYXCsWLUYJ1Bw7Txxnnsm46ySnJTEAiDxqg9UQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com>,
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b4087905c1c5aae6"
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: Fri, 07 May 2021 23:20:04 -0000

--000000000000b4087905c1c5aae6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Proof-of-stake tends towards oligopolistic control, which is antithetical
to bitcoin.

Proof-of-stake also has some other security issues that make it a bad
substitute for Proof-of-work with respect to equivocation (reorgs).

Overall you'll find me *personally* in the camp that it's OK to explore
non-PoW means of consensus long term that can keep the network in consensus
in a more capital efficient manner, but that proof-of-stake is not such a
substitute. Other Bitcoiners will disagree with this invariably, but if you
truly have a novel solution for Byzantine Generals, it would be a major
contribution to not just Bitcoin but the field of computer science as a
whole and would likely get due consideration.

What's difficult is that Bitcoin PoW has some very specific properties that
may or may not be desirable around e.g. fairness that might be difficult to
ensure in other systems, so there is probably more to the puzzle than just
consensus.
--
@JeremyRubin <https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>
<https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin>


On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 3:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello list,
>
> I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage of
> bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable resources
> but the impact is still high.
>
> I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin
> mining in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle
> tested like proof of work. Though someday it will be.
>
> In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented.
> Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford.
> Here's how I see this the possibilities:
>
> 1 - Proof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism
> 2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended
>
> IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider
> implementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of
> controversies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough
> to consider a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work?
>
> Love from India.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000b4087905c1c5aae6
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,he=
lvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000"><div class=3D"gmail_defau=
lt" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:r=
gb(0,0,0)">Proof-of-stake tends towards oligopolistic control, which is ant=
ithetical to bitcoin.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-famil=
y:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;=
font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Proof-of-stake
 also has some other security issues that make it a bad substitute for=20
Proof-of-work with respect to equivocation (reorgs).</div><div class=3D"gma=
il_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small=
;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-fam=
ily:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">Overall yo=
u&#39;ll find me <i>personally</i>
 in the camp that it&#39;s OK to explore non-PoW means of consensus long=20
term that can keep the network in consensus in a more capital efficient=20
manner, but that proof-of-stake is not such a substitute. Other=20
Bitcoiners will disagree with this invariably, but if you truly have a=20
novel solution for Byzantine Generals, it would be a major contribution=20
to not just Bitcoin but the field of computer science as a whole and=20
would likely get due consideration.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=
=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)=
"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helveti=
ca,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)">What&#39;s
 difficult is that Bitcoin PoW has some very specific properties that=20
may or may not be desirable around e.g. fairness that might be difficult
 to ensure in other systems, so there is probably more to the puzzle=20
than just consensus.</div></div><div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signat=
ure" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr">--<br><a href=3D"h=
ttps://twitter.com/JeremyRubin" target=3D"_blank">@JeremyRubin</a><a href=
=3D"https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin" target=3D"_blank"></a></div></div></di=
v><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_=
attr">On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 3:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a hr=
ef=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padd=
ing-left:1ex">Hello list,<br>
<br>
I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage of b=
itcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable resources b=
ut the impact is still high.<br>
<br>
I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin minin=
g in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle teste=
d like proof of work. Though someday it will be.<br>
<br>
In the following years we&#39;ll be seeing proof of stake being implemented=
. Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can&#39;t afford.=
 Here&#39;s how I see this the possibilities:<br>
<br>
1 - Proof of stake isn&#39;t a good enough security mechanism<br>
2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended<br>
<br>
IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider implem=
enting it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of controversie=
s and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough to consider a=
 hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work?<br>
<br>
Love from India.<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>

--000000000000b4087905c1c5aae6--