HiĀ ZmnSCPxj,
Please note that I am not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, but solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant.
Zac
Good morning Zac,
> VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a two-step PoW:
>
> 1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being subject to difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of VDFs, miners are able show proof of work.
>
> 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjustments.
>
> As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced.
As I understand it, another weakness of VDFs is that they are not inherently progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are inherently progress-requiring).
Thus, a miner which focuses on improving the amount of energy that it can pump into the VDF circuitry (by overclocking and freezing the circuitry), could potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation, possibly leading to even *worse* competition and even *more* energy consumption.
After all, if you can start mining 0.1s faster than the competition, that is a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj