rich1.0Michael Dubrovsky [ARCHIVE] (npub1az…s82dq)https://yabu.me/npub1az38dr3qvm8fqky7g6ercqwvk9utve5j55gr6hwlrry5hqv5rmwqws82dqnjumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2021-05-19 📝 Original message:Ah sorry, I didn't realize this was, in fact, a different thread! :) On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 10:07 AM Michael Dubrovsky <mike at powx.org> wrote: > 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/> > -- 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/c650edcc/attachment.html>