From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WekHz-0007RT-6z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:03 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.53; envelope-from=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qa0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-qa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WekHv-0007Js-Q2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:03 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w8so6210105qac.12 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.95.248 with SMTP id i111mr31020660qge.6.1398686634337; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.77.38 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1398382335.20219.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20140425073334.GV3180@nl.grid.coop> <535C1980.7000505@monetize.io> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:03:54 +0300 Message-ID: From: Alex Mizrahi To: Bitcoin Dev Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) 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 (alex.mizrahi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -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: 1WekHv-0007Js-Q2 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proof-of-Stake branch? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:03 -0000 --001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitalik > Buterin? > Yes, he described it in an article a couple of months ago: http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/ but it is an old idea. For example, I've mentioned punishment of this kind in discussion about PPCoin when it was released in 2012, and, I think, it was described in Etlase2's Decrit design. Also, I and Iddo did some research on pure proof-of-stake, and it seems to be feasible, in the sense that there are no obvious problems like "nothing is actually at stake". (Unfortunately I can't refer to it now as it isn't published yet.) --001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitali= k Buterin?

Yes, he described it in an a= rticle a couple of months ago:


but it is an old idea.
For example, I&#= 39;ve mentioned punishment of this kind in discussion about PPCoin when it = was released in 2012, and, I think, it was described in Etlase2's Decri= t design.

Also, I and Iddo did some research on pure proof-of-sta= ke, and it seems to be feasible, in the sense that there are no obvious pro= blems like "nothing is actually at stake". (Unfortunately I can&= #39;t refer to it now as it isn't published yet.)
--001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14--