From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E70DC0001 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:06:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 851FE60688 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:06:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vqDClR_62M63 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:06:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40141.protonmail.ch (mail-40141.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.141]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C7C760686 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:06:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 07:06:23 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1621321589; bh=g1hkq9LcXJHEiQHknvD8YOyiw1a5K0F2BP+IJDPNWpc=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=JhNourn16noX+5N70qXBxp5dUfttq7eJqgO8xg4WJsqQTXtHVbW0iOBB9rJxwvJka MOd/nG3HC2e35oGKYTdTW1MvxgUlQ86AIiyhWFPwLN0KGKe7gjUC9jfVFj7UizeIpm q1+hy9P70v8fOhz7fwItHJMdYaJa7XNy7pHIgMzg= To: Erik Aronesty , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: <30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: SatoshiSingh 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 07:06:35 -0000 Good morning Erik, > Verifiable Delay Functions involve active participation of a single > verifier. Without this a VDF decays into a proof-of-work (multiple > verifiers =3D=3D=3D parallelism). > > The verifier, in this case is "the bitcoin network" taken as a whole. > I think it is reasonable to consider that some difficult-to-game > property of the last N blocks (like the hash of the last 100 > block-id's or whatever), could be the verification input. > > The VDF gets calculated by every eligible proof-of-burn miner, and > then this is used to prevent a timing issue. > > Seems reasonable to me, but I haven't looked too far into the > requirements of VDF's > > nice summary for anyone who is interested: > https://medium.com/@djrtwo/vdfs-are-not-proof-of-work-91ba3bec2bf4 > > While VDF's almost always lead to a "cpu-speed monopoly", this would > only be helpful for block latency in a proof-of-burn chain. Block > height would be calculated by eligible-miner-burned-coins, so the > monopoly could be easily avoided. Interesting link. However, I would like to point out that the *real* reason that PoW consumes= lots of power is ***NOT***: * Proof-of-work is parallelizable, so it allows miners consume more energy = (by buying more grinders) in order to get more blocks than their competitor= s. The *real* reason is: * Proof-of-work allows miners to consume more energy in order to get more b= locks than their competitors. VDFs attempt to sidestep that by removing parallelism. However, there are ways to increase *sequential* speed, such as: * Overclocking. * This shortens lifetime, so you can spend more energy (on building new m= iners) in order to get more blocks than your competitors. * Lower temperatures. * This requires refrigeration/cooling, so you can spend more energy (on t= he refrigeration process) in order to get more blocks than your competitors= . I am certain people with gaming rigs can point out more ways to improve seq= uential speed, as necessary to get more frames per second. Given the above, I think VDFs will still fail at their intended task. Speed, yo. Thus, VDFs do not serve as a sufficient deterrent away from ever-increasing= energy consumption --- it just moves the energy consumption increase away = from the obvious (parallelism) to the obscure-if-you-have-no-gamer-buds. You humans just need to get up to Kardashev 1.0, stat. Regards, ZmnSCPxj