{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] (npub1y2…5taj0)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-05-17\n📝 Original message:Verifiable Delay Functions involve active participation of a single\nverifier.   Without this a VDF decays into a proof-of-work (multiple\nverifiers === parallelism).\n\nThe verifier, in this case is \"the bitcoin network\" taken as a whole.\n I think it is reasonable to consider that some difficult-to-game\nproperty of the last N blocks (like the hash of the last 100\nblock-id's or whatever), could be the verification input.\n\nThe VDF gets calculated by *every* eligible proof-of-burn miner, and\nthen this is used to prevent a timing issue.\n\nSeems reasonable to me, but I haven't looked too far into the\nrequirements of VDF's\n\nnice summary for anyone who is interested:\nhttps://medium.com/@djrtwo/vdfs-are-not-proof-of-work-91ba3bec2bf4\n\nWhile VDF's almost always lead to a \"cpu-speed monopoly\", this would\nonly be helpful for block latency in a proof-of-burn chain.  Block\nheight would be calculated by eligible-miner-burned-coins, so the\nmonopoly could be easily avoided.\n\nThere has been some decent earlier work on blind/uncensorable burns:\nhttps://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1096.pdf\n\nA miner could then reveal A) the VDF and B) proof-of-burn as a part of\na block.  Nodes would simply select the block with A) a valid VDF and\nB) the highest \"qualified\" POB.\n\nWith most burns running at a loss, and no way to predict the next\n\"winning burn\", and the VDF providing timing, I'm not sure how this is\nworse than Bitcoin's existing system.\n\nOn Mon, May 10, 2021 at 5:51 PM Jeremy \u003cjlrubin at mit.edu\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e re: 2, there's been some promising developments with Verifiable Delay Functions that make me think that the block regulation problems are solvable without requiring brute-force search proof of work. Are those inapplicable for some reason?\n\u003e"}