{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Michael Dubrovsky [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"Michael Dubrovsky [ARCHIVE] (npub1az…s82dq)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub1az38dr3qvm8fqky7g6ercqwvk9utve5j55gr6hwlrry5hqv5rmwqws82dq","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-05-19\n📝 Original message:Ah sorry, I didn't realize this was, in fact, a different thread! :)\n\nOn Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:07 AM Michael Dubrovsky \u003cmike at powx.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Folks, I suggest we keep the discussion to PoW, oPoW, and the BIP itself.\n\u003e PoS, VDFs, and so on are interesting but I guess there are other threads\n\u003e going on these topics already where they would be relevant.\n\u003e\n\u003e Also, it's important to distinguish between oPoW and these other\n\u003e \"alternatives\" to Hashcash. oPoW is a true Proof of Work that doesn't alter\n\u003e the core game theory or security assumptions of Hashcash and actually\n\u003e contains SHA (can be SHA3, SHA256, etc hash is interchangeable).\n\u003e\n\u003e Cheers,\n\u003e Mike\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:55 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 1. i never suggested vdf's to replace pow.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working\n\u003e\u003e proof-of-burn protocol\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e - vdfs used only for timing (not block height)\n\u003e\u003e - blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work\n\u003e\u003e - the required \"work\" per block would simply be a competition to\n\u003e\u003e acquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in\n\u003e\u003e advance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far\n\u003e\u003e future\n\u003e\u003e - the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the\n\u003e\u003e value gained from proof of work... without some of the security\n\u003e\u003e drawbacks\n\u003e\u003e - the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk\n\u003e\u003e losing their work in each block)\n\u003e\u003e - new burns can't be used\n\u003e\u003e - old burns age out (like ASICs do)\n\u003e\u003e - other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the\n\u003e\u003e properties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 3. i do believe it is *possible* that a \"burned coin + vdf system\"\n\u003e\u003e might be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space\n\u003e\u003e agreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun\n\u003e\u003e up, and a hard-fork could be initiated.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was\n\u003e\u003e possible that consensus was possible.  so no, this is not an \"alt\n\u003e\u003e coin\"\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood \u003czachgrw at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Hi ZmnSCPxj,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Please note that I am not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy,\n\u003e\u003e but solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e Zac\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj \u003cZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Good morning Zac,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having\n\u003e\u003e a two-step PoW:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e 1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being subject\n\u003e\u003e to difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of\n\u003e\u003e VDFs, miners are able show proof of work.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a\n\u003e\u003e block takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty\n\u003e\u003e adjustments.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e \u003e As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e As I understand it, another weakness of VDFs is that they are not\n\u003e\u003e inherently progress-free (their sequential nature prevents that; they are\n\u003e\u003e inherently progress-requiring).\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Thus, a miner which focuses on improving the amount of energy that it\n\u003e\u003e can pump into the VDF circuitry (by overclocking and freezing the\n\u003e\u003e circuitry), could potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation,\n\u003e\u003e possibly leading to even *worse* competition and even *more* energy\n\u003e\u003e consumption.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e After all, if you can start mining 0.1s faster than the competition,\n\u003e\u003e that is a 0.1s advantage where *only you* can mine *in the entire world*.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e Regards,\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\u003e ZmnSCPxj\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e --\n\u003e Michael Dubrovsky\n\u003e Founder; PoWx\n\u003e www.PoWx.org \u003chttp://www.powx.org/\u003e\n\u003e\n\n\n-- \nMichael Dubrovsky\nFounder; PoWx\nwww.PoWx.org \u003chttp://www.powx.org/\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210519/c650edcc/attachment.html\u003e"}