Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com>) id 1WekHz-0007RT-6z for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:03 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.53; envelope-from=alex.mizrahi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qa0-f53.google.com; Received: from mail-qa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.216.53]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WekHv-0007Js-Q2 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:03 +0000 Received: by mail-qa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w8so6210105qac.12 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.95.248 with SMTP id i111mr31020660qge.6.1398686634337; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.96.77.38 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:03:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <bf916afe-6617-43c9-9738-486316ce308f@email.android.com> References: <1398382335.20219.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20140425073334.GV3180@nl.grid.coop> <535C1980.7000505@monetize.io> <bf916afe-6617-43c9-9738-486316ce308f@email.android.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:03:54 +0300 Message-ID: <CAE28kUQ8C=fCrR5DG08xmJAqEuMwgeT98sM-rrv8RiQdGkp7Mg@mail.gmail.com> From: Alex Mizrahi <alex.mizrahi@gmail.com> To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (alex.mizrahi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1WekHv-0007Js-Q2 Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proof-of-Stake branch? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:04:03 -0000 --001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitalik > Buterin? > Yes, he described it in an article a couple of months ago: http://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/ but it is an old idea. For example, I've mentioned punishment of this kind in discussion about PPCoin when it was released in 2012, and, I think, it was described in Etlase2's Decrit design. Also, I and Iddo did some research on pure proof-of-stake, and it seems to be feasible, in the sense that there are no obvious problems like "nothing is actually at stake". (Unfortunately I can't refer to it now as it isn't published yet.) --001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo= ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left= -width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;paddi= ng-left:1ex"> I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitali= k Buterin?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, he described it in an a= rticle a couple of months ago:</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"http://b= log.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algorithm/">h= ttp://blog.ethereum.org/2014/01/15/slasher-a-punitive-proof-of-stake-algori= thm/</a><br> </div><div><br></div><div>but it is an old idea.</div><div>For example, I&#= 39;ve mentioned punishment of this kind in discussion about PPCoin when it = was released in 2012, and, I think, it was described in Etlase2's Decri= t design.</div> <div><br></div><div>Also, I and Iddo did some research on pure proof-of-sta= ke, and it seems to be feasible, in the sense that there are no obvious pro= blems like "<span style=3D"font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8= 00000190734863px">nothing is actually at stake". (Unfortunately I can&= #39;t refer to it now as it isn't published yet.)</span></div> </div></div></div> --001a11c1709cfe03f104f8191b14--