From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34ABAC0001 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ABD040534 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 nDcp9aiX_Q1W for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from APC01-HK2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-hk2apc01olkn0824.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:febc::824]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AC1A404C7 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:34 +0000 (UTC) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=lUkKzJ28RzkfGo+NqYBKZI+MuWAC67oFUGdirwwMMJsHQu0HDQVNoMmSa4x6LYnQFgII9kuMRLdLl+ZAyUDI4cTfTBsNi5+bNooDFKYG8s/TbsFzrgfQgAPC6+OWy00yEKvPIZ/UGshEoRW/8y4YyF14L60am2E3kvOASr56sz28EDAWk5Fq+twEC9J4hiGgCQHUR60Q605U8PDF40MAZ4oYqaDCtys/OSxMXrYk4OkIDG0a//DaXdbEAoyKnH9wTb0i1U/7v+G//TtC58r7Y7+KgHBZbtDeWt7yxLwgW5nSdxOiNXUkVj7btyCXo1eoLXYj7wjZKXOD8qbVK0mwaA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=zPHszvzNs6F2nEpeXsIGyhHCSDZp/jE/aykKmakyg4w=; b=Zlk8fi4fJSTvsxCLPuuOF3E4qslekL4LAg3iW7sm5PGB/n/Yb0cY5I1mB3kbHTTjIkuc0TUyHd2NdcfwcxFNttCOZ2f/foafyauItt3eiLlBCYci9eDqWd6kdzg9vfvsxacJMtXvoGhtnFqQIArZk0wGt6N9ivYA5v21cr4TLKOZswWzMBfFGc2+xmoP8/oHV0P2zDyMEsetckHUByG8qkA35GRBVU6xzod6nb+DBJ1Z7al8WJ0NEk8xvw5V4CIKEK3rE0AW1fE9sQUReHKNnnyw0eDX3B+YeTlb0AyyzGzhQtVhzbVSoW6OpcMtj1+WDhYXgKfrlip+9VR3sk6Cdw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=none; dmarc=none; dkim=none; arc=none Received: from PS2PR06CA0023.apcprd06.prod.outlook.com (2603:1096:300:56::35) by TY2PR0101MB3038.apcprd01.prod.exchangelabs.com (2603:1096:404:9e::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4108.30; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:17 +0000 Received: from HK2APC01FT055.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com (2603:1096:300:56:cafe::28) by PS2PR06CA0023.outlook.office365.com (2603:1096:300:56::35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4108.25 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:17 +0000 Received: from PS2P216MB1089.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (2a01:111:e400:7ebc::43) by HK2APC01FT055.mail.protection.outlook.com (2a01:111:e400:7ebc::304) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.4108.25 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:17 +0000 Received: from PS2P216MB1089.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::3c57:80af:9d68:d8b8]) by PS2P216MB1089.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::3c57:80af:9d68:d8b8%7]) with mapi id 15.20.4108.032; Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:17 +0000 From: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Erik Aronesty , Keagan McClelland Thread-Topic: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future Thread-Index: AQHXQ5NUprfDxc6ILEKTyCaQIF2FF6rcxK4AgAAOxICAAGYxEQ== Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:17 +0000 Message-ID: References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> , In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-AU, en-US Content-Language: en-AU X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:FD631E5A8E9DAEDD823E1AEF1A1DEA609A2794AEDDC413930A3AF47A4E2DAE0F; UpperCasedChecksum:403FF5CC57B7AD1F1A895BF98D75BE492916DB207F0B41BB576517C212DA9237; SizeAsReceived:7248; Count:45 x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1 x-tmn: [7Ay1Zddc9l8dyCKJk67g1YbKxdS4C4rI] x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-incomingheadercount: 45 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d18a452c-5174-4581-f4ce-08d913f9b02f x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: TY2PR0101MB3038: x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: uMfEw7pVe6yFAz9SsIhaU2B3MevkHnOEzqAyECv3vsUGUeDlL6lnbAaC36PLhkPsXnOsd7Ausqhtakc1/GeDNE7j5tZcxM+/eKXAu7vWjWqZF7gHI53Vb89Oo6MnYBfPBsuBpUuDXANSnCK4HkxH46zCCn4VtRsFCXYt7VB94C+caik5sXtUjhfD8MlbhOCpMJidChfQzCQL2UKQ9QVEIJYdNDh6QL3uCJv9Xvj3jsN8+bCpwPMSw4F6TGZ4xFA6EQSCvbLtm+cbDpy9uQ2ZzydGpCubs5cGnHwYpZUz2TzfssKxHnw/XwZoSGVKQFfMkMtWYK8wqjPdN8ne9zCSyX+F5AHXxlFV4GrjBL08JLxUEXxkXv8h31hfIavoBaqmZjiqDsbG3SfBnjMVS8hKXoFFkfdd78JFGogG8E4oRbzABBq4Aq4rEMNPVqybpOI2ctEren64qyO9gpQjVPmtzQZr9A7m6+Fh/o5EGFAFQcU= x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: wdDioiLGM4teob3yj3C7TBdDzFPz5aeOaD8pdOwuFr+AGEkNFbXmNvZJogxi5AQc/bwCuZa/YLTebeWPvxAI7E/2pDgF4DMiz75Mu6hL6axD1B4w/qdU2NC+brFx4fF/x4J7p91T59G+a7CZBO2D4Q== x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_PS2P216MB10897B23359226ADA4859AE89D549PS2P216MB1089KORP_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: sct-15-20-3174-20-msonline-outlook-5c337.templateTenant X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: HK2APC01FT055.eop-APC01.prod.protection.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-RMS-PersistedConsumerOrg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d18a452c-5174-4581-f4ce-08d913f9b02f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 10 May 2021 21:22:17.2870 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-rms-persistedconsumerorg: 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: TY2PR0101MB3038 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 May 2021 22:21:36 +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: Mon, 10 May 2021 21:22:37 -0000 --_000_PS2P216MB10897B23359226ADA4859AE89D549PS2P216MB1089KORP_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good Afternoon, Proof-of-stake sounds like an altcoin fork. There is no consideration that = proof-of-work is insufficient or that it can be improved upon, only that it= should be regulated. Imagine, you are a gold miner with larger hands so yo= u start a mining race and mine plenty more than everyone. Pretty soon every= body is employing all their available resources just to keep up in the mini= ng race since there are only so many carts instead of just to leisurely uti= lise surplus resources for an opportune find. Each block is a new gold mine= . It is enough for everybody to use leisurely resources. I have initiated conversation previously regarding a method to regulate min= ing, and believe whole heartedly it should happen. That is necessary for th= e future stability of Bitcoin as it is clear the rate of work cannot be all= owed to increase at such a rate. If you search the bitcoin-dev archives you= will find discussion there under my email as we search for a solution. KING JAMES HRMH Great British Empire Regards, The Australian LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire MR. Damian A. James Williamson Wills et al. Willtech www.willtech.com.au www.go-overt.com and other projects earn.com/willtech linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson m. 0487135719 f. +61261470192 This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this emai= l if misdelivered. ________________________________ From: bitcoin-dev on behalf= of Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 2021 1:01 AM To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion ; Er= ik Aronesty Cc: SatoshiSingh Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future To reiterate some of the points here. My problem with proof of stake is two= fold. 1. It requires permission of coin holders to enter into the system. This is= not true of proof of work. You may even attempt (though not successfully) = a proof of work with pencil and paper and submit the block from a regular l= aptop if you so choose. Whether this level of permissionlessness is necessa= ry is up to individual risk tolerance etc. but it is definitely the default= preference of Bitcoin. 2. Proof of stake must have a trusted means of timestamping to regulate ove= rproduction of blocks. This introduction of trust is generally considered t= o be a nonstarter in Bitcoin. Proof of Work regulates this by making blocks= fundamentally difficult to produce in the first place. Like Jeremy, I=92m always interested to learn about new attempts in consens= us algorithms, but the bar to clear is very high and proof of stake to date= has not proposed much less demonstrated a set of properties that is consis= tent with Bitcoins objectives. Keagan On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:43 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev > wr= ote: personally, not speaking for anyone else, i think that proof-of-burn has a much higher likelihood of being a) good enough security and b) solving the nothing-at-stake problem the only issue i see with a quality PoB implementation is a robust solution to the block-timing problem. https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/explaining-proof-of-work/ i do think there *could* be other low-energy solutions to verifiable timing, just haven't seen one On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > Hello list, > > I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage of= bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable resources= but the impact is still high. > > I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin min= ing in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle tes= ted like proof of work. Though someday it will be. > > In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented. = Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford. Here'= s how I see this the possibilities: > > 1 - Proof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism > 2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended > > IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider impl= ementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of controvers= ies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough to consider= a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work? > > Love from India. > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --_000_PS2P216MB10897B23359226ADA4859AE89D549PS2P216MB1089KORP_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Good Afternoon,

Proof-of-stake sounds like an altcoin fork. There is no consideration that = proof-of-work is insufficient or that it can be improved upon, only that it= should be regulated. Imagine, you are a gold miner with larger hands so yo= u start a mining race and mine plenty more than everyone. Pretty soon everybody is employing all their available= resources just to keep up in the mining race since there are only so many = carts instead of just to leisurely utilise surplus resources for an opportu= ne find. Each block is a new gold mine. It is enough for everybody to use leisurely resources.

I have initiated conversation previously regarding a method to regulate min= ing, and believe whole heartedly it should happen. That is necessary for th= e future stability of Bitcoin as it is clear the rate of work cannot be all= owed to increase at such a rate. If you search the bitcoin-dev archives you will find discussion there unde= r my email as we search for a solution.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.

 
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
 
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this emai= l if misdelivered.
From: bitcoin-dev <bit= coin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Keagan McClella= nd via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 2021 1:01 AM
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org>; Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Cc: SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
 
To reiterate some of the points here. My problem with pro= of of stake is twofold. 

1. It requires permission of coin holders to enter into t= he system. This is not true of proof of work. You may even attempt (though = not successfully) a proof of work with pencil and paper and submit the bloc= k from a regular laptop if you so choose. Whether this level of permissionlessness is necessary is up to ind= ividual risk tolerance etc. but it is definitely the default preference of = Bitcoin.

2. Proof of stake must have a trusted means of timestampi= ng to regulate overproduction of blocks. This introduction of trust is gene= rally considered to be a nonstarter in Bitcoin. Proof of Work regulates thi= s by making blocks fundamentally difficult to produce in the first place.

Like Jeremy, I=92m always interested to learn about new a= ttempts in consensus algorithms, but the bar to clear is very high and proo= f of stake to date has not proposed much less demonstrated a set of propert= ies that is consistent with Bitcoins objectives.

Keagan

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:43 AM Eri= k Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
personally, not speaking for anyone else, i think that proof-of-burn
has a much higher likelihood of being a) good enough security and b)
solving the nothing-at-stake problem

 the only issue i see with a quality PoB implementation is a robust solution to the block-timing problem.

https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/expla= ining-proof-of-work/

i do think there *could* be other low-energy solutions to verifiable
timing, just haven't seen one


On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage= of bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable resour= ces but the impact is still high.
>
> I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin = mining in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle = tested like proof of work. Though someday it will be.
>
> In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemente= d. Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford. He= re's how I see this the possibilities:
>
> 1 - Proof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism
> 2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended<= br> >
> IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider i= mplementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of controv= ersies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough to consi= der a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work?
>
> Love from India.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--_000_PS2P216MB10897B23359226ADA4859AE89D549PS2P216MB1089KORP_--