Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C2EC0001 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 16:59:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB3DF40579 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 16:59:12 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 lYM3YoWwxt8k for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 16:59:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C3825402D6 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 16:59:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id y32so5048145pga.11 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 09:59:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MqM4qf+I2f6VrolyvwMR5eJr8t8wMbzeGqGUebbLoy0=; b=adGp4MSq1m9KHD9da/HN1gWPfd13nOyzjUXL8AaOsqjveIMQi57zaJH1UhmTOGTBKF VyV+8AvSrXdVcVCuiG2c7cAn/DfgAE3inzT8yvM5j/I4RxHXcY2RtmBXnvIPhDe6Ma48 YB/vkkdMY2pRPemFWCH96M9iRGtceDZ8YTQ2QKItS+lyeoKokjWet77R0InUtbKY4ShV pKnaVv4XOa5FWJh+cbyOgRYckdT+7rz8F1HiCS+FRbSOWmUHJVvs3Sm4d0AXrTEd1d/s U+K7iH7oanv5KdeWXWdzUoTXTWAU1m4Bs1HOQpODjHp4ifMg+6N9eRMX4L39XFvoFJtK m1tw== 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=MqM4qf+I2f6VrolyvwMR5eJr8t8wMbzeGqGUebbLoy0=; b=pS0Zygk/Q+iUhrMzdYY/bbgLPf0hMgfP10yQPkyVXpZsVpm3JAJ+hJpDFaxGnZGo3y qsq5VOoFtq3F1H0KWnU4iWVApMJya1+6+DnMtemeuDvpjtsXiAPlIwISeXoD6oZH5dkq 4UBOqEi0AXKzDuSYiOtHwSbrgwDOsBM4OVXqvWZKEWWY40xPnIAHb/UKGizrDsUtiuGb CD8CJEgEUdJUNVhPBLtC9MeCrnZM6xyxGuEHCrqqyzVd/Z8zpB10rgnW3SjHMl82W+Kn t0qOvcBXFkyD622ev+0TD/2c19MuOEWu1sfjX0IynVs/xF/U3vd8cliRKqUTKuqsHm3W 1eAw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531qdIryWEtALQzOz/zLlKzIFEj2eXwapmnQq1eVGDkEYnX0GMJ4 mq+eY/WZrs8CHiZ1hHGv6Mm790LgEYw5Xf9ReU8l06Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygrTfLCSMgyzLWKoBYo0OIiWp+RsdrcXZDZUY0rynP+XffkNmCo8BA3wH6NT9xss7SzS3z0jJ8oDsGilH6bYY= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:8202:0:b029:2d8:c24d:841d with SMTP id k2-20020aa782020000b02902d8c24d841dmr427133pfi.57.1621270751171; Mon, 17 May 2021 09:59:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 12:58:59 -0400 Message-ID: To: Jeremy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 May 2021 19:00:13 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , SatoshiSingh 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: Mon, 17 May 2021 16:59:13 -0000 Verifiable Delay Functions involve active participation of a single verifier. Without this a VDF decays into a proof-of-work (multiple verifiers === parallelism). The verifier, in this case is "the bitcoin network" taken as a whole. I think it is reasonable to consider that some difficult-to-game property of the last N blocks (like the hash of the last 100 block-id's or whatever), could be the verification input. The VDF gets calculated by *every* eligible proof-of-burn miner, and then this is used to prevent a timing issue. Seems reasonable to me, but I haven't looked too far into the requirements of VDF's nice summary for anyone who is interested: https://medium.com/@djrtwo/vdfs-are-not-proof-of-work-91ba3bec2bf4 While VDF's almost always lead to a "cpu-speed monopoly", this would only be helpful for block latency in a proof-of-burn chain. Block height would be calculated by eligible-miner-burned-coins, so the monopoly could be easily avoided. There has been some decent earlier work on blind/uncensorable burns: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/1096.pdf A miner could then reveal A) the VDF and B) proof-of-burn as a part of a block. Nodes would simply select the block with A) a valid VDF and B) the highest "qualified" POB. With most burns running at a loss, and no way to predict the next "winning burn", and the VDF providing timing, I'm not sure how this is worse than Bitcoin's existing system. On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 5:51 PM Jeremy wrote: > > re: 2, there's been some promising developments with Verifiable Delay Functions that make me think that the block regulation problems are solvable without requiring brute-force search proof of work. Are those inapplicable for some reason? >