{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","title":"Karl [ARCHIVE] wrote","author_name":"Karl [ARCHIVE] (npub10h…9xjf9)","author_url":"https://yabu.me/npub10hvdghlzknsxl8n9fhevm3hc6ppgkmnhjl0x7999hylnmcm3jursv9xjf9","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://yabu.me","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-05-08\n📝 Original message:Bitcoin would get better mainstream public reputation if the block reward\nwere reduced to reduce mining.  This would quickly and easily reduce energy\nexpenditure.\n\nA system would be needed to do that with consensus, to make it political.\nFor example, making a norm of extending the block reward termination\nfarther into the future, spreading the remaining coins out more thinly, but\nnever doing the opposite.\n\nPoS can be made to work but it's hard to do so amid such disagreement.  It\nis so hard to express one's relevant information concisely and effectively.\n\nI recommended earlier finding or hiring an experienced facilitator who\ncould make sure all concerns around the chain are included by engaging all\nthe dialog more productively.  Somebody would need to be available to do\nthe work of finding such a person and any compensation they might need.\n\nOn Fri, May 7, 2021, 7:05 PM Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy\n\u003e\n\nThis wiki states things as impossible but does not at all demonstrate them\nto be so.\n\nThe assumption that something is impossible always relies on many other\nassumptions, and the reader may have different ones from the author.\n\nQuote from Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy\n\u003e In Other Means Principle it is shown that censorship resistance depends\non people paying miners to overpower the censor.\n\u003e Overcoming censorship is not possible in a PoS system, as the censor has\nacquired majority stake and cannot be unseated.\n\nIf the link in that text is followed you get,\n\nQuote from Other Means Principle:\n\u003e Given that mining is necessarily anonymous, there is no way for the\neconomy to prevent state participation in mining.\n\nThe article then goes on to assume this, but \"no way\" is a circular link\nback to Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy!\n\nNever is it demonstrated that a censor will always be able to have majority\nstake.  In a PoS system, they would have to be able to form false chain\nhistories to do that.  In a PoW system, they would have to outcompete the\nwork.\n\nThese are not inherent limitations.  The whole world is open.  Consider a\nproof of work algorithm that requires the freeing of prisoners: a state a\nvery different state if it does this.  Or a communication protocol that\nalready cannot be intercepted.  These things are exotically hard, but not\nimpossible, and show that the logic of the articles is not valid.\n\nAnother random idea: incentivising out-of-band channels, for example.\nMining blocks based on finding and uniting illegitimate forks.  Now a chain\nfunctions by defeating its own censorship.\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210508/0f6fc4e7/attachment.html\u003e"}