rich1.0Michael Dubrovsky [ARCHIVE] (npub1az…s82dq)https://yabu.me/npub1az38dr3qvm8fqky7g6ercqwvk9utve5j55gr6hwlrry5hqv5rmwqws82dqnjumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2021-05-19 📝 Original message:Folks, I suggest we keep the discussion to PoW, oPoW, and the BIP itself. PoS, VDFs, and so on are interesting but I guess there are other threads going on these topics already where they would be relevant. Also, it's important to distinguish between oPoW and these other "alternatives" to Hashcash. oPoW is a true Proof of Work that doesn't alter the core game theory or security assumptions of Hashcash and actually contains SHA (can be SHA3, SHA256, etc hash is interchangeable). Cheers, Mike On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 4:55 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > 1. i never suggested vdf's to replace pow. > > 2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working > proof-of-burn protocol > > - vdfs used only for timing (not block height) > - blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work > - the required "work" per block would simply be a competition to > acquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in > advance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far > future > - the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the > value gained from proof of work... without some of the security > drawbacks > - the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk > losing their work in each block) > - new burns can't be used > - old burns age out (like ASICs do) > - other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the > properties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly. > > 3. i do believe it is *possible* that a "burned coin + vdf system" > might be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space > agreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun > up, and a hard-fork could be initiated. > > 4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was > possible that consensus was possible. so no, this is not an "alt > coin" > > On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood <zachgrw at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi ZmnSCPxj, > > > > 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. > > > > Zac > > > > > > On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Good morning Zac, > >> > >> > VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a > two-step PoW: > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > > >> > 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block > takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjustments. > >> > > >> > As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced. > >> > >> 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). > >> > >> 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. > >> 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*. > >> > >> Regards, > >> ZmnSCPxj > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -- Michael Dubrovsky Founder; PoWx www.PoWx.org <http://www.powx.org/> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210519/1da2c85a/attachment.html>