From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WeCGo-0005I7-Ew for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:44:34 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.213.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.179; envelope-from=gacrux@gmail.com; helo=mail-ig0-f179.google.com; Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WeCGn-0003Yk-Cj for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:44:34 +0000 Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hl10so3515373igb.12 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:44:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.43.93.5 with SMTP id bs5mr15013189icc.11.1398555868105; Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:44:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (60-240-212-53.tpgi.com.au. [60.240.212.53]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p9sm10338420igj.16.2014.04.26.16.44.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 26 Apr 2014 16:44:27 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: <535C1980.7000505@monetize.io> References: <1398382335.20219.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20140425073334.GV3180@nl.grid.coop> <535C1980.7000505@monetize.io> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Gareth Williams Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:13 +1000 To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gacrux[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WeCGn-0003Yk-Cj Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proof-of-Stake branch? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2014 23:44:34 -0000 What about using fraud proofs? Your coinbase only matures if nobody publishes proof that you signed a competing block. Then something is at least at stake. When it's your chance to sign a block, attempting to sign and publish more than one at the same height reliably punishes you (you effectively waste your chance and receive no reward.) I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitalik Buterin? On 27 April 2014 6:39:28 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach wrote: >There's no need to be confrontational. I don't think anyone here >objects >to the basic concept of proof-of-stake. Some people, myself included, >have proposed protocols which involve some sort of proof of stake >mechanism, and the idea itself originated as a mechanism for >eliminating >checkpoints, something which is very much on topic and of concern to >many here. > >The problems come when one tries to *replace* proof-of-work mining with >proof-of-stake "mining." You encounter problems related to the fact >that >with proof-of-stake nothing is actually at stake. You are free to sign >as many different forks as you wish, and worse have incentive to do so, >because whatever fork does win, you want it to be yours. In the worst >case this results in double-spends at will, and in the best case with >any of the various proposed protections deployed, it merely reduces to >proof-of-work as miners grind blocks until they find one that names >them >or one of their sock puppets as the signer of the next block. > >I sincerely doubt you will find a solution to this, as it appears to be >a fundamental issue with proof-of-stake, in that it must leverage an >existing mechanism for enforced scarcity (e.g. proof-of-work) in order >to work in a consensus algorithm. Is there some solution that you have >in mind for this? > >Mark > >On 04/25/2014 12:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote: >> Do it. Someone will scream harm. The loudest voices screaming how it >would >> be harmful are doing the most harm. >> >> The only way to know is build it, and test it. If the network breaks, >then >> it is better we find out sooner rather than later. >> >> My only suggestion is call it 'bitstake' or something to clearly >differentiate >> it from Bitcoin. This also might be an interesting application of the >side >> chains concept Peter Todd has discussed. >> >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:32:15PM -0700, Stephen Reed wrote: >>> Hello all. >>> >>> I understand that Proof-of-Stake as a replacement for Proof-of-Work >is a prohibited yet disputed change to Bitcoin Core. I would like to >create a Bitcoin branch that provides a sandboxed testbed for >researching the best PoS implementations. In the years to come, perhaps >circumstances might arise, such as shifting of user opinion as to >whether PoS should be moved from the prohibited list to the hard-fork >list. >>> ----- >>> >>> A poll I conducted today on bitcointalk, >https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581635.0 with an >attention-grabbing title suggests some minority support for Bitcoin >Proof-of-Stake. I invite any of you to critically comment on that >thread. >>> >>> "Annual 10% bitcoin dividends can be ours if Proof-of-Stake full >nodes outnumber existing Proof-of-Work full nodes by three-to-one. What >is your choice?" >>> >>> "I do not care or do not know enough." - 5 (16.1%) >>> "I would download and run the existing Proof-of-Work program to >fight the change." - 14 (45.2%) >>> "I would download and run the new Proof-of-Stake program to favor >the change. " - 12 (38.7%) >>> Total Voters: 31 >>> ----- >>> >>> Before I branch the source code and learn the proper way of doing >things in this community, I ask you simply if creating the branch is >harmful? My goal is to develop, test and document PoS, while exploring >its vulnerabilities and fixing them in a transparent fashion. >>> >>> Thanks for taking a bit of your time to read this message. >> >> >> >> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform >Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software >Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready >Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform >http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform >_______________________________________________ >Bitcoin-development mailing list >Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.