{"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:2021-05-18\n📝 Original message:1. i never suggested vdf's to replace pow.\n\n2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working\nproof-of-burn protocol\n\n- vdfs used only for timing (not block height)\n- blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work\n- the required \"work\" per block would simply be a competition to\nacquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in\nadvance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far\nfuture\n- the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the\nvalue gained from proof of work... without some of the security\ndrawbacks\n- the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk\nlosing their work in each block)\n- new burns can't be used\n- old burns age out (like ASICs do)\n- other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the\nproperties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly.\n\n3. i do believe it is *possible* that a \"burned coin + vdf system\"\nmight be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space\nagreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun\nup, and a hard-fork could be initiated.\n\n4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was\npossible that consensus was possible.  so no, this is not an \"alt\ncoin\"\n\nOn Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood \u003czachgrw at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Hi ZmnSCPxj,\n\u003e\n\u003e 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.\n\u003e\n\u003e Zac\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj \u003cZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Good morning Zac,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a two-step PoW:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e 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.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjustments.\n\u003e\u003e \u003e\n\u003e\u003e \u003e As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 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).\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 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.\n\u003e\u003e 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*.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Regards,\n\u003e\u003e ZmnSCPxj"}