rich1.0Karl [ARCHIVE] (npub10h…9xjf9)https://yabu.me/npub10hvdghlzknsxl8n9fhevm3hc6ppgkmnhjl0x7999hylnmcm3jursv9xjf9njumphttps://yabu.me📅 Original date posted:2021-05-08 📝 Original message:Bitcoin would get better mainstream public reputation if the block reward were reduced to reduce mining. This would quickly and easily reduce energy expenditure. A system would be needed to do that with consensus, to make it political. For example, making a norm of extending the block reward termination farther into the future, spreading the remaining coins out more thinly, but never doing the opposite. PoS can be made to work but it's hard to do so amid such disagreement. It is so hard to express one's relevant information concisely and effectively. I recommended earlier finding or hiring an experienced facilitator who could make sure all concerns around the chain are included by engaging all the dialog more productively. Somebody would need to be available to do the work of finding such a person and any compensation they might need. On Fri, May 7, 2021, 7:05 PM Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy > This wiki states things as impossible but does not at all demonstrate them to be so. The assumption that something is impossible always relies on many other assumptions, and the reader may have different ones from the author. Quote from Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy > In Other Means Principle it is shown that censorship resistance depends on people paying miners to overpower the censor. > Overcoming censorship is not possible in a PoS system, as the censor has acquired majority stake and cannot be unseated. If the link in that text is followed you get, Quote from Other Means Principle: > Given that mining is necessarily anonymous, there is no way for the economy to prevent state participation in mining. The article then goes on to assume this, but "no way" is a circular link back to Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy! Never is it demonstrated that a censor will always be able to have majority stake. In a PoS system, they would have to be able to form false chain histories to do that. In a PoW system, they would have to outcompete the work. These are not inherent limitations. The whole world is open. Consider a proof of work algorithm that requires the freeing of prisoners: a state a very different state if it does this. Or a communication protocol that already cannot be intercepted. These things are exotically hard, but not impossible, and show that the logic of the articles is not valid. Another random idea: incentivising out-of-band channels, for example. Mining blocks based on finding and uniting illegitimate forks. Now a chain functions by defeating its own censorship. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210508/0f6fc4e7/attachment.html>