1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0330FC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE69683F01
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.299
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id WXxyDvoyzMxe
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:27 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB86183E6C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id j12so7306885pgh.7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Mon, 10 May 2021 07:08:26 -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
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=QP2fn5+MecopAhnIUBcnFnxRv3qypEOcSiVDnJvpXsY=;
b=a+MuU9tZk3tvRDUE88TaDfYILo4BvDy/9anUo4UOyvh2G8ywSjc4OJC108ZtNmamod
oZ8N/Tc3i6lerjEQ15eIZF9N+fsyoWWpZFbVPacg/bzKUmUhTURAMgfg2CA7UUXm/P1G
HyhQTXfX+4opyBDXep242Huwr/7DPywLV/oEVzFrncuen37AqI7bJqTRUO768/2uWh4i
HUIvAw1R3O3Ug64jaamlpd8mkMx73S7ET1dmUdlKezZIk4Q2iYG/vw47KDx4O5nwguor
i8xfeTpMewt2j2SbueJhbM8+vJpq6FZ/R1OeL7g14o4ZiBa++ZuWE1pZaq/X3Rdmc+xg
E3MA==
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:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=QP2fn5+MecopAhnIUBcnFnxRv3qypEOcSiVDnJvpXsY=;
b=szQRR58yCuE6djnl8ZK8Md52KuuSZNzGafYeBf0Vchl6k9H/ZwmFxMDXjbEaIs2vyV
UiukS2tPS3UsBuhZHKZsu3iJQ5ANWb2kMt6P2n1P8C+FvFfVUDf41lcz+PFDju64R9/x
CXgatFnLh7OJVkEvCKGeE0pV/mD2t0THIWmZaWAuP+T3k6/eNwRLxezz9MmQavDS+x32
x06qpASJ1ftaEoyfOwXfcRP71c7ZuR4/tqr0cX1ZfJNTD7S7sgiN4pcU6L1HjIaIlTPQ
CjPUoeIHHRdJmD4dE5NoScHIpZbS7jFRAzwibGWsZXZPNQHktvVaOzCz9Zqx73b8ZiWT
8Tgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530uxRuIsSUfE273ApliSEJDbsDTFoCVfmt1XuaknUeABcmHL1Mc
C8AoN1vdqDBzydg5joMGcj20ft6TpVRk3Wb41NvTnBY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwUTe3Bj8TpT2JJ32EmQJEYF0f/iSPIsYpymGlueN0ack6BUibYL6xxFkUhuu93vku42SPBim4FgJmb1BEUwvY=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:86d3:0:b029:291:cb2d:f91d with SMTP id
h19-20020aa786d30000b0290291cb2df91dmr24975212pfo.57.1620655706333; Mon, 10
May 2021 07:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6do5xN2g5LPnFeM55iJ-4C4MyXOu_KeXxy68Xt4dJQMhi3LJ8ZrLICmEUlh8JGfDmsDG12m1JDAh0e0huwK_MlyKpdfn22ru3zsm7lYLfBo=@protonmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 10:08:14 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJowKg+QM94g+JcC-E-NGD4J9-nXHWt5kBw14bXTAWaqZz=bYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:43:35 +0000
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 14:08:30 -0000
personally, not speaking for anyone else, i think that proof-of-burn
has a much higher likelihood of being a) good enough security and b)
solving the nothing-at-stake problem
the only issue i see with a quality PoB implementation is a robust
solution to the block-timing problem.
https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/explaining-proof-of-work/
i do think there *could* be other low-energy solutions to verifiable
timing, just haven't seen one
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage of=
bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable resources=
but the impact is still high.
>
> I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin min=
ing in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle tes=
ted like proof of work. Though someday it will be.
>
> In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented. =
Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford. Here'=
s how I see this the possibilities:
>
> 1 - Proof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism
> 2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended
>
> IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider impl=
ementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of controvers=
ies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough to consider=
a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work?
>
> Love from India.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
|
