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 048CEC0001 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:30:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63CB405EE for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:29:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=powx-org.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 hkrVRGeJVn0S for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:29:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2f]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1949C4055A for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:29:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com with SMTP id r8so18588488ybb.9 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 08:29:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=powx-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BeXs8vCtnfjWE6i1t2J+2u8T5OfXjL9avuSkqYzzQvQ=; b=CXyzS4q/iSwUFJAJDLUdVDD7uUh1kp/q7F61v95F8LsaJ3jtkE0MQcQYhUNRInYvOH VVVeXEb0HgLYpGo5RR+SwbGt7vOxbYSY+pOH97bcCbRGjXH5W1yWmKE/3GpFnb+vUIrG FsA8gT2b7dAtv/IgEXeM7s0gQ6zlDKQyXg9RL/o6qzR9TfGi98otKxp7F1yvoyHtGTsU vFHSZR1MlSX/7wPPoEuUUJB627UJYoqpvk9h6rCgTJ6q9BalYrAIAXNoAvEt5m3uSSW5 injiD1Wd/v80zzg4TpK1vyV9PFuacPXj07RsDeEADG3r3J3aLtqKPKn1ua/Y6AoP0Ktc sJYA== 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=BeXs8vCtnfjWE6i1t2J+2u8T5OfXjL9avuSkqYzzQvQ=; b=HkMbaC3UC0WoltKUIewrFT1ggmhoxtPagx4kin8IihJbEfmQ0gRQYI0SNlZ4o3UXOk KXo5yVYLqftfu44ZwJQkT44YbiMvzoHmVgdgij5l/q3MaqDdKKmBqK7CtAPQa0nH0Fpp Myr/nsLse7Udn9Az+ftE07J6OvmGRAYMJjwR6VUA5TjqgGJFBeQvBR1esVm1LR/CcAkC et+DX3Kitw+4HQyRiVPMMDC1q225OghT+eQD8yBjAyPUfbrhUrW4lJx9U899n6bkKiry +CxoiooS9anP0mPWWy3XAjOMqb9+fg84mcYIR0u27BBGOBZy1gUmlPZPnavd2ipnuCn4 4krg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aVozyKFNT4w2JcdWnr5znzlsrqxPV/B6UgoIuYJdWKfmwLz+u y+OtPVtwjpdaJsyBjQLqVD8OMShYmG3rR3ttksCgAA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwEYBjl38T+tZ8DsTBmvDpXXjpgtYkmcplKrpG9FDISwfuFDZXVKjO86h59iOrmHlKp9tLIgfJESL2qzGzxFNw= X-Received: by 2002:a25:8e0e:: with SMTP id p14mr162382ybl.84.1621438196673; Wed, 19 May 2021 08:29:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> <30li5MRxkBhzLxLmzRnHkCdn8n3Feqegi-FLZ5VDyIX2uRJfq4kVtrsLxw6dUtsM1atYV25IfIfDaQp4s2Dn2vc8LvYkhbAsn0v_Fwjerpw=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Michael Dubrovsky Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 11:30:36 -0400 Message-ID: To: Erik Aronesty , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bd059105c2b07fd2" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 19 May 2021 15:31:58 +0000 Cc: SatoshiSingh 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: Wed, 19 May 2021 15:30:00 -0000 --000000000000bd059105c2b07fd2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Ah sorry, I didn't realize this was, in fact, a different thread! :) On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:07 AM Michael Dubrovsky wrote: > Folks, I suggest we keep the discussion to PoW, oPoW, and the BIP itself. > PoS, VDFs, and so on are interesting but I guess there are other threads > going on these topics already where they would be relevant. > > Also, it's important to distinguish between oPoW and these other > "alternatives" to Hashcash. oPoW is a true Proof of Work that doesn't alter > the core game theory or security assumptions of Hashcash and actually > contains SHA (can be SHA3, SHA256, etc hash is interchangeable). > > Cheers, > Mike > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:55 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> 1. i never suggested vdf's to replace pow. >> >> 2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working >> proof-of-burn protocol >> >> - vdfs used only for timing (not block height) >> - blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work >> - the required "work" per block would simply be a competition to >> acquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in >> advance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far >> future >> - the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the >> value gained from proof of work... without some of the security >> drawbacks >> - the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk >> losing their work in each block) >> - new burns can't be used >> - old burns age out (like ASICs do) >> - other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the >> properties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly. >> >> 3. i do believe it is *possible* that a "burned coin + vdf system" >> might be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space >> agreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun >> up, and a hard-fork could be initiated. >> >> 4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was >> possible that consensus was possible. so no, this is not an "alt >> coin" >> >> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood wrote: >> > >> > Hi 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 >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > > > -- > Michael Dubrovsky > Founder; PoWx > www.PoWx.org > -- Michael Dubrovsky Founder; PoWx www.PoWx.org --000000000000bd059105c2b07fd2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ah sorry, I didn't realize this was, in fact, a differ= ent thread! :)

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:07 AM Michael Dubrovsky <mike@powx.org> wrote:
Folks, I suggest= we keep the discussion to PoW, oPoW, and the BIP itself. PoS, VDFs, and so= on are interesting but I guess there are other threads going on these topi= cs already where they would be relevant.=C2=A0

Also, it&= #39;s important=C2=A0to distinguish between oPoW and these other "alte= rnatives" to Hashcash. oPoW is a true Proof of Work that doesn't a= lter the core game theory or security assumptions of Hashcash and actually = contains SHA (can be SHA3, SHA256, etc hash is interchangeable).
=
Cheers,
Mike=C2=A0

On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:= 55 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o= rg> wrote:
zachgrw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi ZmnSCPxj,
>
> Please note that I am not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, b= ut solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant.
>
> Zac
>
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote: >>
>> 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 s= ubject 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 adjus= tments.
>> >
>> > 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 i= nherently 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 circu= itry), could potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation, possibly le= ading to even *worse* competition and even *more* energy consumption.
>> After all, if you can start mining 0.1s faster than the competitio= n, that is a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*= .
>>
>> Regards,
>> ZmnSCPxj
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


--
Mich= ael Dubrovsky
Founder; PoWx
www.PoWx.org


--
Michael Dubrovsky
Founder; PoWx
--000000000000bd059105c2b07fd2--