From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WddTH-0002VT-OF for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:35:07 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of yahoo.com designates 216.109.114.203 as permitted sender) client-ip=216.109.114.203; envelope-from=stephenreed@yahoo.com; helo=nm46-vm10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com; Received: from nm46-vm10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([216.109.114.203]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1WddTG-0000vP-MY for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:35:07 +0000 Received: from [98.139.212.149] by nm46.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Apr 2014 10:35:01 -0000 Received: from [98.139.212.248] by tm6.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Apr 2014 10:35:01 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1057.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Apr 2014 10:35:01 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 252135.86961.bm@omp1057.mail.bf1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 56759 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Apr 2014 10:35:01 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: sdedY6UVM1nmWuRwZicj5PpjG9xyRfDpU1j0CPnTBchC1_K ZuemOPv_5vE.mccFZNlXw_VjaDRCtmQ.m_r1uh5Ch0zbyRCn65hn2YQPKNlC URjS2sT0dXZw0Dz4MOVjcmlQ.n6aAtLDefPC5MmosWqbjFYGFJxfkkx4z0Pq Y3Ir7N2M2VzT9FkZecxALGHSWmkRElx4cT9ZkbhjaRMiZrccpFI5I4iymCKu KDbgJql5Vf3YG3K314UEflRRoAgxmidcEw.7C1EngcPSZAKpI_KqdYvWKTEw fOVKwwiTv4kkCzX2VwVjnk1xCX8SHs_BX1u4RLmD_mw2wX3lN2YBi6.6heqe ctor2FqVMeCXxXufVJ2LCLyPBNpW0OGl1ulu9dK5bgSGeqID0AW84UKW_Obt CQBmXP1nngacsEXFkAEZ_fqbBguDUq.JV2.k1mrGUV_ga5kgol8zpNO2IsWY e.4.4eaH86PHEGXzJ7ANdYGa9nFdsbV7ldxhmALVKtopKz8PPkmnHcveF0GV 22N61ZkUf4ZctVYCB_aB0a_VvO4PWsaeKxHgt9nNLTQtsb53m.WDk1T6iJSI VnkDgZfgRYjJf8BNPuMferpOAgKma5HwGE1XmPT_kUVbYySI79.TTPsnkYYn MQ4IwxJ4yI47WlnosJJPib1_2g8uxvUrat_6vF6yz5BpCEXfqPwMlxgpCHCh TGNMDo40hKRc- Received: from [76.250.116.214] by web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:35:00 PDT X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, TXkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBpcyB0aGF0IHNpZGVjaGFpbnMgcmVxdWlyZSBtZXJnZWQgbWluaW5nIHN1cHBvcnQgYW5kIHRoYXQgc2lkZWNoYWlucyBjcmVhdGUgbm8gY29pbmJhc2UgdHJhbnNhY3Rpb25zIHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMuIFdoZW4gQml0Y29pbiBDb3JlIHN1cHBvcnRzIHRoZSB0d28td2F5IHBlZyB0aGVuIEkgd291bGQgdXBkYXRlIG15IHNvdXJjZSBjb2RlIGJyYW5jaCB0byBpbmNvcnBvcmF0ZSB0aGF0IG9yIGFueSBvdGhlciBjaGFuZ2UgdGhhdCBpcyByZWxlYXNlZC4gSWRlYWxseSwgd2hlbiBzaWQBMAEBAQE- X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.185.657 References: <1398382335.20219.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20140425073334.GV3180@nl.grid.coop> Message-ID: <1398422100.68438.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:35:00 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Reed To: Jeffrey Paul , Troy Benjegerdes In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (stephenreed[at]yahoo.com) -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [216.109.114.203 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WddTG-0000vP-MY Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proof-of-Stake branch? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: Stephen Reed List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:35:07 -0000 My understanding is that sidechains require merged mining support and that = sidechains create no coinbase transactions themselves. When Bitcoin Core su= pports the two-way peg then I would update my source code branch to incorpo= rate that or any other change that is released. Ideally, when sidechains ca= n work with PoW Bitcoin, then those same sidechains should work without any= changes with PoS Bitcoin running in my testnet.=0A=0AI will be examining P= PC, NXT and whitepapers for ideas that I can implement in such a way as the= result can be called Bitcoin. The only difference would be the absence of = wasteful Proof-of-Work, and the presence of mining rewards distributed to f= ull nodes in proportion to the amount of bitcoin each is willing to expose = to the network. Coin age is a good starting point. A reference peer-to-peer= pool developed by me would be responsible for fairly distributing the mini= ng rewards as daily dividend payments to PoS full node pool members.=0A=0AI= n a few days, I plan to establish a Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin project thread i= n the Project Development sub-forum of Bitcointalk. We can continue the tec= hnical discussion there, starting with a list of principles.=0A=0A=0AStephe= n L. Reed =0AAustin, Texas, USA =0A512.791.7860=0A=0AOn Friday, April 25, 2= 014 4:42 AM, Jeffrey Paul wrote:=0A=0AAre proof of stake= blockchains compatible with the sidechain/two-way peg system invented by G= reg (and maybe others - reports unclear)?=0A>=0A>http://letstalkbitcoin.com= /blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/=0A>=0A>It's my limited under= standing that any sidechains in such a model are somewhat cryptographically= tied to the PoW system that bitcoin's chain uses. I am seriously curious i= f alternate decentralized consensus algorithms (proof of execution, proof o= f stake, et c) are compatible with the sidechain universe as envisioned. = =0A>=0A>Perhaps someone with a deeper technical understanding could explain= how, if so, or if my incomplete hunch (that alternate consensus algorithms= cannot retain compatibility with Bitcoin in a two way peg model) is correc= t.=0A>=0A>These sorts of "alternate universe" altcoin experiments with diff= erent proof models take on a different cost/benefit ratio if they can't eve= r interoperate as sidechains, which is why I'm curious. =0A>=0A>Best,=0A>-j= p=0A>=0A>-- =0A>Jeffrey Paul=A0=A0=A0+1 (312) 361-0355=0A>5539 AD00 DE4C 42= F3 AFE1 1575 0524 43F4 DF2A 55C2=0A>=0A>=0A>> On 25.04.2014, at 00:33, Troy= Benjegerdes wrote:=0A>> =0A>> This also might be an inte= resting application of the side=0A>> chains concept Peter Todd has discusse= d.=0A>=0A>=A0