MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f867f949-9a04-329b-ea1b-26201f46d2ab@nathanalexander.net>
 <CAPv7TjZA2KYeVnT6PE6UHXwPy__E-VOvjmYD1207f1CgBRhLZg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPv7TjZA2KYeVnT6PE6UHXwPy__E-VOvjmYD1207f1CgBRhLZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Billy Tetrud <billy.tetrud@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:08:02 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGpPWDax_Ht0H-Ct_SfaFF7AD-nUH-T1Sfo9+c7M6ptUK8ifzw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ruben Somsen <rsomsen@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cd8c4605cdd8bf88"
Cc: Nathan T Alexander <nta@nathanalexander.net>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Question- must every mining rig attempt every
	block?
Precedence: list

--000000000000cd8c4605cdd8bf88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Proof of stake systems attempt to create red light - green light types of
things with non-gameable attributes (eg collaborative random numbers). This
can't be done with mining because mining is completely random - its not
possible to know which miner will mine a block. If it were, it wouldn't be
proof of work, but something else. What you describe sounds like proof of
identity, which isn't possible in a decentralized adversarial environment.
In fact, one of the primary achievements of the Proof of Work consensus
mechanism is to work around the Sybil issue, where (like ZmnSCPxj
mentioned) a single user can have many identities.

There can be hybrid systems that use both proof of work and proof of stake,
but my conclusion after having done a lot of research and thinking about it
([1]
<https://github.com/fresheneesz/quantificationOfConsensusProtocolSecurity>,
[2] <https://github.com/fresheneesz/proofOfTimeOwnership>) is that the
security mostly boils down to the weakest piece of the hybrid system, and
so its not very effective to have hybrid systems like you mentioned.

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:43 AM Ruben Somsen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hi Nathan,
>
> That's a fair question, but note that we've already had a bunch of "green
> mining" related posts a few months ago, so I suspect you'll be able to find
> many criticisms to this idea in the following thread:
>
>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-May/018937.html
>
> It also looks like you'll be able to find some related answers on Bitcoin
> Stack Exchange:
>
> https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/106308/decreasing-energy-consumption-of-bitcoins-pow-with-paired-mining-rounds
>
> And generally speaking these types of discussions don't end up being very
> fruitful for bitcoin-dev, because these are the types of changes that are
> unlikely to ever be seriously considered for Bitcoin.
>
> Cheers,
> Ruben
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 4:09 PM Nathan T Alexander via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> For purposes of conserving energy, couldn't each mining rig have some
>> non-gameable attribute which would be used to calculate if a block would
>> be accepted by that rig?
>>
>> Don't the mining rigs have to be able to identify themselves to the
>> network somehow, in order to claim their block reward? Could their
>> bitcoin network ID be used as a non-gameable attribute?
>>
>> Essentially a green light / red light system. In order for a block to be
>> accepted by the network, it must have all attributes of a successful
>> block today, and it must also have come from a rig that had a green light.
>>
>> Perhaps hash some data from the last successful block, along with the
>> miners non-gameable attribute, and if it's below a certain number set by
>> algorithm, the miner gets a green light to race to produce a valid block.
>>
>> Nathan Alexander
>>
>> Arlington, TX
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000cd8c4605cdd8bf88
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Proof of stake systems attempt to create red light - green=
 light types of things with non-gameable attributes (eg collaborative rando=
m numbers). This can&#39;t be done with mining because mining is completely=
 random - its not possible to know which miner will mine a block. If it wer=
e, it wouldn&#39;t be proof of work, but something else. What you describe =
sounds like proof of identity, which isn&#39;t possible in a decentralized =
adversarial environment. In fact, one of the primary achievements of the Pr=
oof of Work consensus mechanism is to work around the Sybil issue, where (l=
ike=C2=A0ZmnSCPxj mentioned) a single user can have many identities.=C2=A0<=
div><br></div><div>There can be hybrid systems that use both proof of work =
and proof of stake, but my conclusion after having done a lot of research a=
nd thinking about it (<a href=3D"https://github.com/fresheneesz/quantificat=
ionOfConsensusProtocolSecurity">[1]</a>, <a href=3D"https://github.com/fres=
heneesz/proofOfTimeOwnership">[2]</a>) is that the security mostly boils do=
wn to the weakest piece of the hybrid system, and so its not very effective=
 to have hybrid systems like you mentioned.</div></div><br><div class=3D"gm=
ail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 10:=
43 AM Ruben Somsen via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<b=
r></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex=
;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">=
Hi Nathan,<div><br></div><div>That&#39;s a fair question, but note that we&=
#39;ve already had a bunch of &quot;green mining&quot; related posts a few =
months ago, so I suspect you&#39;ll be able to find many criticisms to this=
 idea in the following thread:</div><div><br></div><div><a href=3D"https://=
lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-May/018937.html" targe=
t=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-M=
ay/018937.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>It also looks like you&#39;ll b=
e able to find some related answers on Bitcoin Stack Exchange:</div><div><a=
 href=3D"https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/106308/decreasing-ener=
gy-consumption-of-bitcoins-pow-with-paired-mining-rounds" target=3D"_blank"=
>https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/106308/decreasing-energy-consu=
mption-of-bitcoins-pow-with-paired-mining-rounds</a><br></div><div><br></di=
v><div>And generally speaking these types of discussions don&#39;t end up b=
eing very fruitful for bitcoin-dev, because these are the types of changes =
that are unlikely to ever be seriously considered for Bitcoin.</div><div><b=
r></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Ruben</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 4:09 PM Na=
than T Alexander via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.li=
nuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org<=
/a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">F=
or purposes of conserving energy, couldn&#39;t each mining rig have some <b=
r>
non-gameable attribute which would be used to calculate if a block would <b=
r>
be accepted by that rig?<br>
<br>
Don&#39;t the mining rigs have to be able to identify themselves to the <br=
>
network somehow, in order to claim their block reward? Could their <br>
bitcoin network ID be used as a non-gameable attribute?<br>
<br>
Essentially a green light / red light system. In order for a block to be <b=
r>
accepted by the network, it must have all attributes of a successful <br>
block today, and it must also have come from a rig that had a green light.<=
br>
<br>
Perhaps hash some data from the last successful block, along with the <br>
miners non-gameable attribute, and if it&#39;s below a certain number set b=
y <br>
algorithm, the miner gets a green light to race to produce a valid block.<b=
r>
<br>
Nathan Alexander<br>
<br>
Arlington, TX<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000cd8c4605cdd8bf88--