From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64CECC002F for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 18:15:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52D69405D3 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 18:15:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OBrQmnxRwGL1 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 18:15:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ed1-x536.google.com (mail-ed1-x536.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::536]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25ABE40146 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 18:15:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x536.google.com with SMTP id m4so83246724edb.10 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:15:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9ZhPIW+BID7HypKJFUCb1X2nnRUSkwKW2B40BAon9k4=; b=LkTd1P2yQvsOeN6XEmO4W6Ci+B9q3tejm7BFlzT5HcpMny5EjzjwsJY5h5mjHC8FGK Gny3Fr/wfXBLf2u/mdTT8Bptny235isS51uWfsVXGJiIC54wqRldwVTK1tdvZZGVUpSB LYy4f0TLgTJ4BdAOczAwWtECpq6KfDQ4v7Cu+OqWvootF1slvlIpD7E+2Hqmi0CO0o1r U1TNiZMWE9m6qmtPNd1endLdyoJmWCKrmoFDOmfXhU3+mHNFnilYmu9P4jkvNH4mPEtc HcYGjwo8uyvtxLMX10BwxQYebmBPq0F2DOnGbJmgor7wE6fbN7SkcCkUJXTXWXkWf5Qj UFuQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9ZhPIW+BID7HypKJFUCb1X2nnRUSkwKW2B40BAon9k4=; b=1hWB4m94iTMjkN+yS/rtiQQo3xEepPyx/NYLdKQTe+MeUkdugaRWg41x5VM81pKL/C wYEL6QakITkoYukGhmujAHxrMYg42p6+Qz14uQGo+OBbh1ba8F9pNFCeUd5hd+StBTul SyIBD6senJ6YuQsifubQV4JNuixLhV2mRgXCZM00wMRGD8yzgXAToEOc4Umfr7QhV74l sjals3T30XTFWkne2R1riykm6Gq5GNc7bf2n3BzIzO7IC816bovSXe9i7hYnzVtrDE9G 0uytuZ5G0C9sRhEV/2i2M6Rbnz/zz0OTRq64TrHmHBUdEv0xQyFHgGgUhI/teW+dqyRS xNPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533IHqoidYxBk3JN0X/S5mP0tanvrscR315V1NK1vjyViESAK8KB lmQZuwjCh5PtwTEj9gPJQbOQvc0nsS1Zvpb2vt0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxLAblW5riOabJR47ES7Y/dNPGxkTkyS/U4HK6ltXoTzx4ttCBoigPhrnNaOpOR+s5NcN3g0BqH9RncqZxMWIg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:dc95:: with SMTP id cs21mr12221350ejc.709.1642529732226; Tue, 18 Jan 2022 10:15:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <151161119-8858833d76ec6beed19cf87cc542dc62@pmq3v.m5r2.onet> In-Reply-To: From: Billy Tetrud Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:15:15 -0600 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000038f58a05d5df41e7" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 19:14:53 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Bitcoin Advent Calendar] Decentralized Coordination Free Mining Pools 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 Jan 2022 18:15:35 -0000 --00000000000038f58a05d5df41e7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" @vjudeu > If you introduce signing into mining, then you will have cases, where someone is powerful enough to produce blocks, but cannot, because signing is needed.. your consensus is no longer "the heaviest chain" You've misunderstood my suggestion. This would not be possible with what I suggested. Why do you think of the signature as some kind of barrier? What I was suggesting was that, when a miner participating in this protocol mines a valid bitcoin block, they then sign a superblock with a public key that can be verified alongside the coinbase output (eg say with data in the first tapleaf of the output address). The block is still connected to something secured by PoW. You really made a lot of incorrect assumptions about what I suggested. On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 1:05 PM Jeremy wrote: > If you introduce signing into mining, then you will have cases, where >> someone is powerful enough to produce blocks, but cannot, because signing >> is needed. Then, your consensus is no longer "the heaviest chain", but "the >> heaviest signed chain". That means, your computing power is no longer >> enough by itself (as today), because to make a block, you also need some >> kind of "permission to mine", because first you sign things (like in >> signet) and then you mine them. That kind of being "reliably unreliable" >> may be ok for testing, but not for the main network. > > > this is a really great point worth underscoring. this is the 'key > ingredient' for DCFMP, which is that there is no signing or other network > system that is 'in the way' of normal bitcoin mining, just an opt-in set of > rules for sharing the bounties of your block in exchange for future shares. > --00000000000038f58a05d5df41e7 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
@vjudeu
>=C2=A0 If you introduce signing into mining, then you will have cases, where someo= ne is powerful enough to produce blocks, but cannot, because signing is nee= ded..=C2=A0 your consensus is no longer "the he= aviest chain"

You've misunderstood my su= ggestion. This would not be possible with what I suggested. Why do you thin= k of the signature as some kind of barrier? What I was suggesting was that,= when a miner participating=C2=A0in this protocol mines a valid bitcoin blo= ck, they then sign a superblock with a public key that=C2=A0can be verified= alongside the coinbase output (eg say with data in the first tapleaf of th= e output address). The block is still connected to something secured by PoW= . You really made a lot of incorrect assumptions about what I suggested.=C2= =A0

On Thu, Dec 23, 2021 at 1:05 PM Jeremy <jlrubin@mit.edu> wrote:
If you introduce signing into mining, t= hen you will have cases, where someone is powerful enough to produce blocks= , but cannot, because signing is needed. Then, your consensus is no longer = "the heaviest chain", but "the heaviest signed chain". = That means, your computing power is no longer enough by itself (as today), = because to make a block, you also need some kind of "permission to min= e", because first you sign things (like in signet) and then you mine t= hem. That kind of being "reliably unreliable" may be ok for testi= ng, but not for the main network.

this is a really great point worth underscoring. this= is the 'key ingredient' for DCFMP, which is that there is no signi= ng or other network system that is 'in the way' of normal bitcoin m= ining, just an opt-in set of rules for sharing the bounties of your block i= n exchange for future shares.
--00000000000038f58a05d5df41e7--