From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326E5C0019 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 09:41:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16427406AB for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 09:41:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gazeta.pl 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 RwuE8ZhSclb0 for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 09:41:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from smtpo47.poczta.onet.pl (smtpo47.poczta.onet.pl [213.180.142.178]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC4994061C for ; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 09:41:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pmq5v.m5r2.onet (pmq5v.m5r2.onet [10.174.35.25]) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTP id 4FMp4n0QS7zlhnxb; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:41:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gazeta.pl; s=2013; t=1618652505; bh=gbTEUHz98qKurnxM8ikDvwVQkbjpu1lmKb2O7Dt26G8=; h=From:To:Date:Subject:From; b=lB5NGwA6Dc6sBt0/5Ux+cEL9p6KED2r+DR0DzbMx6CtIENCw742G1Acvx2f+jU/e/ 6S0ud2CL1YE2ZfNh6w77wojHLmuA6eT7HZ53uLh5DGqq/acWYEaCF6lsHvKVl7DZTZ E9qT0D7ltzqlNiKjW3vzyAHVn6ZEcgIrCkjSNTto= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received: from [5.173.252.88] by pmq5v.m5r2.onet via HTTP id 202104171141322508010001; Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:41:45 +0200 From: vjudeu X-Priority: 3 To: Erik Aronesty , "bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:41:44 +0200 Message-Id: <128966745-bb0a93fd2653dc12305b953184cbcd13@pmq5v.m5r2.onet> X-Mailer: onet.poczta X-Onet-PMQ: ;5.173.252.88;PL;2 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:43:40 +0000 Subject: Re: [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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 09:41:59 -0000 Yes, transition from Proof of Work to Proof of Something Else is possible i= n a soft-fork way. All that is needed is getting miners and users support. = Then, Proof of Work difficulty should drop to one, and the rest would be so= lved by Proof of Something Else. Old miners still could use ASIC miners to = produce blocks with higher Proof of Work, but then their blocks would be re= jected. Currently, you can also make a block with enormously low hash, but = if this block would contain two transactions sending the same coins to two = different places, it would be rejected, no matter how low that hash would b= e. As long as miners would produce enough Proof of Something Else and as lo= ng as most nodes would use upgraded software, it should be resistant to suc= h attacks. So, technically speaking, it is possible. The most difficult part is gettin= g miners and users supporting it. On 2021-04-16 23:47:44 user Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > > I think you need to hard deprecate the PoW for this to work, otherwise = all old miners are like "toxic waste". > = > what would be the incentive? a POB would be required on every block > (and would be lost if not used). so any miner doing this would just > be doing "extra work" and strictly losing money over a miner that > doesn't. a 99% reduction would be more than enough tho. > = > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 5:24 PM Jeremy wrote: > > > > I think you need to hard deprecate the PoW for this to work, otherwise = all old miners are like "toxic waste". > > > > Imagine one miner turns on a S9 and then ramps up difficulty for everyo= ne else. > > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:08 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> > >> 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). > >> _______________________________________________ > >> bitcoin-dev mailing list > >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > =