From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47109C000B for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:49:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D1E4016D for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:49:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_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 tNxktFPYOZdu for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:49:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEB1B400E9 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:49:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id d16so101518lfn.3 for ; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:49:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ofe18NiRu4Z97ky2nWJDJmv/yxRxxaZIFkZLzA9ygmw=; b=pD1N59TUErkusURMc1iw9lwy2G/R76C84NITuAiSeuCcyHX0iwoFbp2N2uk7roVKk3 drYaXjTOCdzrvr/U6OL2tSpd5dJy85gVotnQMJwmx3SZVsupAn2JVBvnqGGbnuB7jO6i tBhq23lzzOSMvlEeMYdbVVdU4E37JxivQWOIlU+H2b6uucV1pk2vyTccf5K7TOLvQz7F zrtv4EkFH8zDNEaM3L3L07BICFfpy/xoQORNvDAFO95+McSd2fRDtU5zWrLClA/HAqSu BZebbY44rVC/03vaSCfNfSoxqA/9y0Pmaq6W34wiUIHvZHVuBx6gaFBE/AT5q0bHN4/i 2ayQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ofe18NiRu4Z97ky2nWJDJmv/yxRxxaZIFkZLzA9ygmw=; b=kv3ZMJ7LoBg9uxUI/Or7R+nZvHASOoWKxYLTDmTon3ZYhcO+PjcKkByXdYNbRCjn2F JpqukVMWQO+drD052DfHagvcEogrYb5xxDus/jMq6LArd+tpr3TbLK6mCyN5VogxjOHL VDV9Vm7BGA7ZvqmeGhNs6schb4Vt7d0N4FqymscqfMBKwrAiH84BByCfbESyBwn3y7zg pv8KAsek7TEn87ipGhal9khBluA71nVQ9kr9TpY2koeHM9/M4WfuJCHoWgOfhmbMQkGl bivQGPaQWCewiUaMNYC2/OPkVE5FF8aKtcYSI+gwhf+QokdfpPcV4NM0SjFOmH/QvgFN OnHg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533NsqPKpjcsvrq4f7U2VBaAYqi/ofFcD0WpUiQHcksLKN7Q13fw KXLr+b0yzD3ylx8youwJv8TwJZQTrj213wBp6Pg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwDYzHxZJ5yFfr0udxkrajZWidFTppTU+uLpRDFQSGGwR+b+9Rm4ukNC+aQZa1G9eT+UHKwHHjzfqfz3gqy+A= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:332c:: with SMTP id l12mr2148108lfe.454.1623894546382; Wed, 16 Jun 2021 18:49:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> <30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Lloyd Fournier Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 11:48:39 +1000 Message-ID: To: James MacWhyte Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009701e605c4ec69b6" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 20:14:21 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 01:49:10 -0000 --0000000000009701e605c4ec69b6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" @James wrote: On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 21:13, James MacWhyte wrote: > > @Lloyd wrote: > > Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding keys online >> so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "participation keys"[1] that >> will be used to create blocks on your coin holding key's behalf. >> Hopefully you've spotted the problem. >> You can send your participation keys to any malicious party with a nice >> website (see random example [2]) offering you a good return. >> Damn it's still Proof-of-SquareSpace! >> > > I believe we are talking about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you want > to mine PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and configure it to work, > and wait a long time to get any return by solo mining. Or you can join a > mining pool, which might use your hashing power for nefarious purposes. > A mining pool using your hashrate for nefarious purposes can easily be observed since they send you the contents of the block you are mining before your hardware starts working on it. This difference is crucial. Mining pools exist just to reduce income variance. > Or you might skip the hardware all together and fall for some "cloud > mining" scheme with a pretty website and a high rate of advertised return. > So as you can see, Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well! > I'd agree that "cloud mining" pretty much is Proof-of-SquareSpace for PoW. Fortunately these services make up a tiny fraction of hashrate. > The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own > validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and PoS have > the professional/expert way of participating, and the fraud-prone, amateur > way of participating. The only difference is, with PoS the > professional/expert way is accessible to anyone with a raspberry Pi and a > web connection, which is a much lower barrier to entry than PoW. > And yet despite this, the fraud-prone amteur way of participating accounts for the majority of stake in PoS systems while the professional/expert way of participating accounts for the overwhelming majority of hashpower in Bitcoin. It looks like you have elegantly proved my point! LL --0000000000009701e605c4ec69b6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
@James wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 2= 1:13, James MacWhyte <macwhyte@gma= il.com> wrote:

@Lloyd wrote:

Of course in reality no one wants to keep thei= r coin holding keys online so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "= ;participation keys"[1] that will be used to create blocks on your coi= n holding key's behalf.
Hopefully you've spotted the problem.You can send your participation keys to any malicious party with a nice we= bsite (see random example [2]) offering you a good return.
Damn it's= still Proof-of-SquareSpace!

I be= lieve we are talking about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you want to min= e PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and configure it to work, and wai= t a long time to get any return by solo mining. Or you can join a mining po= ol, which might use your hashing power for nefarious purposes.
<= /div>
=C2=A0
A mining pool using your hashrate f= or nefarious purposes can easily be observed since they send you the conten= ts of the block you are mining before your hardware starts working on it. T= his difference is crucial. Mining pools exist just to reduce income varianc= e.
=C2=A0
Or you might skip th= e hardware all together and fall for some "cloud mining" scheme w= ith a pretty website and a high rate of advertised return. So as you can se= e, Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!

I'd agree that "cloud mining" pretty mu= ch is Proof-of-SquareSpace for PoW. Fortunately these services make up a ti= ny fraction of hashrate.


The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting up your ow= n validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and PoS ha= ve the professional/expert way of participating, and the fraud-prone, amate= ur way of participating. The only difference is, with PoS the professional/= expert way is accessible to anyone with a raspberry Pi and a web connection= , which is a much lower barrier to entry than PoW.

And yet despite this, the fraud-prone amteur way = of participating accounts for the majority of stake in PoS systems while th= e professional/expert way of participating accounts for the overwhelming ma= jority of hashpower in Bitcoin. It looks like you have elegantly proved my = point!

LL
--0000000000009701e605c4ec69b6--