From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C65C000A for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:48:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D024A41853 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:48:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BjpSemREwwhy for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:47:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pj1-x102d.google.com (mail-pj1-x102d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102d]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F68E41850 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:47:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-x102d.google.com with SMTP id lt13so5867962pjb.1 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:47:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=anlqnc+4cHnQgrTw0ZfBXine/Kv0aDcw5XDbBF+2E2A=; b=X3dwhekPnMqjRVojxpAd3Tm5J7Y5IZx2BZevlgvcOPg0dk1VP+RjwTKlB9CzEbH/Rj Y//j4rFr/ABb91vWjUwgrzpmLlP7+3P9xEb714De5qsJ/9mbsymiSQ5KH4Dbz8KaynS2 yygwYe7MkGq7SI/+n2PW/Dx/T/z/eCKwdUC7U/4KElXIkwZeBPHtkdn8FEgtMr54l0sT BW0m0DQrfMXTXvs1nNfrhL1teNBjcdGi5cgcpscOkscpH2c8elYyZoer3HD4csSgGDPM wRvhVcaFTzDvMT5Ua8CpAGE8Mbr8cnVV2Z+h2g8q/ARd+IRGlSehgcgoqmAl6PT4APHd EnNQ== 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=anlqnc+4cHnQgrTw0ZfBXine/Kv0aDcw5XDbBF+2E2A=; b=W0w1sP/aQePWmLJxcouyLQB6O62mhVXGg0DzGX5NC59nJm7aa1HGO+ZUyw32cVP/VW S/IQIL0KKp0HWVGd548rmY20fe5xwEa854fYtEx5lMNe4YsqEl3+gUseQ33rBd4chUZi pB+0jJ5YkXoUyF6sB+aVnmTZVwElZgtkfCs7GfGgFrxAsI9Uu2mJztCPXg98n1wEDzE8 7911hPzx0x2ek/UKAOyHK6WhWTWJSZYAtCkuxtgZKBmvuskUctAdF4BD0+cfjn20J6/f vzx4UKBECHOTQskQ1qWjGipsaCHxbBnA4JyONMWzSb8sCx0nbDAxyormbaY5/yS1pT8Y YWrA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531yNF1uGYsX5+2FLrqcRjcfOliqYZY4xzEixZdLOYulgl3kQG4u aoNgY1kz5QPJm8v9qfniEJtG24S1zPEVum7EWsjjHM8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3M3A/eXCCaJc2Up9iabwajRXbHogu4LLMi9HLYuvQqvzJjHDL6WLX/K7qNfhMJXR1HV8aEa/DBcnhCEV5MRc= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:bd8c:: with SMTP id z12mr12036530pjr.83.1618609676534; Fri, 16 Apr 2021 14:47:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 17:47:44 -0400 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:49:09 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Gradual transition to an alternate proof without a hard fork. 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 21:48:01 -0000 > I think you need to hard deprecate the PoW for this to work, otherwise all old miners are like "toxic waste". what would be the incentive? a POB would be required on every block (and would be lost if not used). so any miner doing this would just be doing "extra work" and strictly losing money over a miner that doesn't. a 99% reduction would be more than enough tho. On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 5:24 PM Jeremy wrote: > > I think you need to hard deprecate the PoW for this to work, otherwise all old miners are like "toxic waste". > > Imagine one miner turns on a S9 and then ramps up difficulty for everyone else. > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:08 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev 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