<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] wrote</title><author_name>Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] (npub1y2…5taj0)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2021-05-18&#xA;📝 Original message:1. i never suggested vdf&#39;s to replace pow.&#xA;&#xA;2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working&#xA;proof-of-burn protocol&#xA;&#xA;- vdfs used only for timing (not block height)&#xA;- blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work&#xA;- the required &#34;work&#34; per block would simply be a competition to&#xA;acquire rewards, and so miners would have to burn coins, well in&#xA;advance, and hope that their burned coins got rewarded in some far&#xA;future&#xA;- the point of burned coins is to mimic, in every meaningful way, the&#xA;value gained from proof of work... without some of the security&#xA;drawbacks&#xA;- the miner risks losing all of his burned coins (like all miners risk&#xA;losing their work in each block)&#xA;- new burns can&#39;t be used&#xA;- old burns age out (like ASICs do)&#xA;- other requirements on burns might be needed to properly mirror the&#xA;properties of PoW and the incentives Bitcoin uses to mine honestly.&#xA;&#xA;3. i do believe it is *possible* that a &#34;burned coin + vdf system&#34;&#xA;might be more secure in the long run, and that if the entire space&#xA;agreed that such an endeavor was worthwhile, a test net could be spun&#xA;up, and a hard-fork could be initiated.&#xA;&#xA;4. i would never suggest such a thing unless i believed it was&#xA;possible that consensus was possible.  so no, this is not an &#34;alt&#xA;coin&#34;&#xA;&#xA;On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 10:02 AM Zac Greenwood &lt;zachgrw at gmail.com&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Hi ZmnSCPxj,&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; 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.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Zac&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj &lt;ZmnSCPxj at protonmail.com&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Good morning Zac,&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt; VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a two-step PoW:&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt; 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.&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt; 2. Use current PoW mechanism with lower difficulty so finding a block takes 1 minute on average, again subject to as-is difficulty adjustments.&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; &gt; As a result, variation in block times will be greatly reduced.&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; 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).&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; 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.&#xA;&gt;&gt; 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*.&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; Regards,&#xA;&gt;&gt; ZmnSCPxj</html></oembed>