rich1.0Keagan McClelland [ARCHIVE] (npub1f2…ms289)https://yabu.me/npub1f2nxequ09nz44775vv6lkffq2plzqvrqramnk29eddmwcc9z7jys8ms289njumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2021-05-10 📝 Original message:To reiterate some of the points here. My problem with proof of stake is twofold. 1. It requires permission of coin holders to enter into the system. This is not true of proof of work. You may even attempt (though not successfully) a proof of work with pencil and paper and submit the block from a regular laptop if you so choose. Whether this level of permissionlessness is necessary is up to individual risk tolerance etc. but it is definitely the default preference of Bitcoin. 2. Proof of stake must have a trusted means of timestamping to regulate overproduction of blocks. This introduction of trust is generally considered to be a nonstarter in Bitcoin. Proof of Work regulates this by making blocks fundamentally difficult to produce in the first place. Like Jeremy, I’m always interested to learn about new attempts in consensus algorithms, but the bar to clear is very high and proof of stake to date has not proposed much less demonstrated a set of properties that is consistent with Bitcoins objectives. Keagan On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:43 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > personally, not speaking for anyone else, i think that proof-of-burn > has a much higher likelihood of being a) good enough security and b) > solving the nothing-at-stake problem > > the only issue i see with a quality PoB implementation is a robust > solution to the block-timing problem. > > https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/explaining-proof-of-work/ > > i do think there *could* be other low-energy solutions to verifiable > timing, just haven't seen one > > > On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > Hello list, > > > > I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage > of bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable > resources but the impact is still high. > > > > I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin > mining in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle > tested like proof of work. Though someday it will be. > > > > In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented. > Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford. > Here's how I see this the possibilities: > > > > 1 - Proof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism > > 2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended > > > > IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider > implementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of > controversies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough > to consider a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work? > > > > Love from India. > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210510/a45a8038/attachment.html>