Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AD77C0001 for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 19:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D45C40432 for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 19:07:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r1BXP-2B72IF for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 19:07:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb33.google.com (mail-yb1-xb33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b33]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 846184040B for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 19:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb33.google.com with SMTP id y2so18718558ybq.13 for ; Sun, 09 May 2021 12:07:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=3zKXraYu52jAO6ULQARHOJ9kFyCbmXtzOjPvApllLTc=; b=Br1rLFu482qUyrjv5xOqrdha5+ekrEtDO2euLIo/DlxKXqeE/J/4mwDNM/0h+qu1Qg RnySqtr32nObFd2xDtGf9eS16J4yiQkOUMQ4+D00j2zfcXSt2sDn1tm+C5AaO6ilJZK8 4jTP4yXs8XzF/wyiVw7p9TgUel8MIpsXkHOKMGoqizmW/F91sYyfG0Oo1K6CT/cTn6+J 0NU8o1x7JnAF6ALmjR6U4EaWKsaGMWDh/SWIkTF/CLCWo9o38/5cxKdutGiAkEdDGdlJ SYxDAjtt+gqotqBXiFBOkFYZwRyeWm+bEcAFp34TLDkD1FqbapC85L3duTsQ0SvdCLGE SIVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=3zKXraYu52jAO6ULQARHOJ9kFyCbmXtzOjPvApllLTc=; b=niVDhli8BaSuv/6accxP8jmXxDLstH/eFqVYXkB3POi+0UgJHO3BpjtdQiunvfnLo+ A6zsqSEQQN9GRhb0CIXjTg3kbU60VC0OXVyOaV8rnhdw76Kvx4SF56FM1ysEXelKJinP /FDmvnEUA+oAM2Q71nQQdmQkuozZ8fWX5S7k3sANYdUIQZntIoot8NAgi05QxQTJ8yoo JhzcYAkGU00h+wFFrduDbH+RUSCuraT1jE5smW70pOxnF3DzW/Ujgk64jHF/nWpDAAPM G7lNJCih1nWU1cNSWZbYhd4PE3TKDTUVL84MM+A4GCrCiAYpmvxo5RJiha7GsKc9ipu+ nMgw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530EH4efGTlUtxDYl4GBQpMJe/kNE2doJq9fUmPAcxKSynlJcoqp IAnS5ooHuJpbvoGw8U3roZ/9eBAP1Ih1+zmDiWQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwKXL2j5pFouxTWLcIHHVu0jEVMT/DMNeNW/FTfIJ7l7SVQJveGuv2s11O1T/bxQYVEpvDHXQkbS7Tw2rGiM0M= X-Received: by 2002:a25:2f41:: with SMTP id v62mr8896752ybv.395.1620587274515; Sun, 09 May 2021 12:07:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Cloud Strife Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 15:07:43 -0400 Message-ID: To: Karl , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d3396a05c1ea6088" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 09 May 2021 19:53:08 +0000 Cc: SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 May 2021 19:07:57 -0000 --000000000000d3396a05c1ea6088 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Proof of stake is permissioned by coins, an internal, permissioned, and already owned resource. You cannot gain tokens without someone choosing to give up those coins - a form of permission. Permission can also be thought of as an infinite barrier to entry. PoW forces giving up control through both permissionless to enter mining via EXTERNAL permissionless resources and unforgeable costliness for the miners. Without unforgeable costliness there's no reason to ever give up control in PoS. In fact, staking quite literally incentivizes keeping control by rewarding those in control with more coins and control in perpetuity at no cost - the incentives on PoS are completely backwards from decentralizing control. Since no mechanism forces control to be permissionlessly distributed to others, parties in control cannot be considered independent parties nor can control be considered decentralized. PoS solves nothing that's relevant to permissionless decentralized networks. > In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented It has been implemented since 2014 but it doesn't meet criteria for a permissionless network. There's nothing new about implementing permissioned networks. You could try to replace proof of work with proof of bitcoin burn (not well studied) on blockchains other than Bitcoin, but there's no known replacement for proof of work for Bitcoin right now. PoS has been considered and studied since then many times since then and dismissed repeatedly for irrelevance to decentralized permissionless technology, examples: - https://nakamotoinstitute.org/research/on-stake-and-consensus/ - https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca - https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ - https://hugonguyen.medium.com/work-is-timeless-stake-is-not-554c4450ce18 - https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.06528 On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 10:49 AM Karl via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > What is more important; >> Bitcoin mining introduces the first free-market demand for the cheapest >> energy source. > > > This is a really great idea but I think access to technologically advanced > hardware is a stronger component than energy here. > > Making open community chip fabs might change that. Then anybody could get > on the bandwagon. But right now the hardware barrier keeps the common > person out. > > If you can build a chip fab, you may also be able to build a powerplant. > Not many others can do that to compete with you. The energy economy still > has more supply than competition or renewable energy would quickly > outcompete nonrenewable as the price dropped. > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000d3396a05c1ea6088 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Proof of stake is permissioned by co= ins, an internal, permissioned, and already owned resource.=C2=A0

You cannot gain tokens without someone choosing to give up = those coins - a form of permission. Permission can also be thought of as an= infinite barrier to entry.

PoW forces giving up c= ontrol through both permissionless to enter mining via EXTERNAL=20 permissionless=20 resources and unforgeable costliness for the miners.

Without unforgeable costliness there's no reason to ever give up con= trol in PoS.=C2=A0

In fact, staking quite literall= y incentivizes keeping control by rewarding those in control with more coin= s and control in perpetuity at no cost - the incentives on PoS are complete= ly backwards from decentralizing control.

Sin= ce no mechanism forces control to be=C2=A0permissionlessly distributed to o= thers, parties in control cannot be considered independent parties nor can = control be considered decentralized.

PoS solves no= thing that's relevant to permissionless decentralized networks.
=C2=A0
In t= he following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented

It has been implemented since 2014 but it does= n't meet criteria for a permissionless network. There's nothing new= about implementing permissioned networks.

You cou= ld try to replace proof of work with proof of bitcoin burn=20 (not well studied) on blockchains other than Bitcoin, but there's no k= nown replacement for proof of work for Bitcoin right now.

On Sat, May 8, 202= 1 at 10:49 AM Karl via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
What is more important;
Bitcoin mining introduces the f= irst free-market demand for the cheapest energy source.
<= div dir=3D"auto">
This is a really great idea bu= t I think access to technologically advanced hardware is a stronger compone= nt than energy here.

Mak= ing open community chip fabs might change that.=C2=A0 Then anybody could ge= t on the bandwagon.=C2=A0 But right now the hardware barrier keeps the comm= on person out.

If you ca= n build a chip fab, you may also be able to build a powerplant.=C2=A0 Not m= any others can do that to compete with you.=C2=A0 The energy economy still = has more supply than competition or renewable energy would quickly outcompe= te nonrenewable as the price dropped.

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000d3396a05c1ea6088--