public inbox for bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net>
To: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>,
	 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
	<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Gradual transition to an alternate proof without a hard fork.
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 13:19:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB0O3SXT7k42Q=DH_PxVzV4W3HCEajfFqHuNW-YyEfP6W=zhfg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJowKgJNefXZTCJk_EK4JC7uPKsTrGv=yUROpjL_7GGbfNrrvA@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1655 bytes --]

Hi Erik,

Here's a scheme I posted here a few years ago, which smoothly transitions
using geometric mean chain weight / difficulty:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-November/015236.html

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:08 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2442 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-04-17 11:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-16 20:48 [bitcoin-dev] Gradual transition to an alternate proof without a hard fork Erik Aronesty
2021-04-16 21:24 ` Jeremy
2021-04-16 21:47   ` Erik Aronesty
2021-04-17 11:19 ` Devrandom [this message]
2021-04-17 11:47 ` Anthony Towns
2021-05-21 20:11   ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-21 20:54     ` Erik Aronesty
2021-04-17  9:41 vjudeu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAB0O3SXT7k42Q=DH_PxVzV4W3HCEajfFqHuNW-YyEfP6W=zhfg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net \
    --cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=erik@q32.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox