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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <stephenreed@yahoo.com>) id 1WddTH-0002VT-OF
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:35:07 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of yahoo.com
designates 216.109.114.203 as permitted sender)
client-ip=216.109.114.203; envelope-from=stephenreed@yahoo.com;
helo=nm46-vm10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com;
Received: from nm46-vm10.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com ([216.109.114.203])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WddTG-0000vP-MY
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:35:07 +0000
Received: from [98.139.212.149] by nm46.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
25 Apr 2014 10:35:01 -0000
Received: from [98.139.212.248] by tm6.bullet.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
25 Apr 2014 10:35:01 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1057.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP;
25 Apr 2014 10:35:01 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 252135.86961.bm@omp1057.mail.bf1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 56759 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Apr 2014 10:35:01 -0000
X-YMail-OSG: sdedY6UVM1nmWuRwZicj5PpjG9xyRfDpU1j0CPnTBchC1_K
ZuemOPv_5vE.mccFZNlXw_VjaDRCtmQ.m_r1uh5Ch0zbyRCn65hn2YQPKNlC
URjS2sT0dXZw0Dz4MOVjcmlQ.n6aAtLDefPC5MmosWqbjFYGFJxfkkx4z0Pq
Y3Ir7N2M2VzT9FkZecxALGHSWmkRElx4cT9ZkbhjaRMiZrccpFI5I4iymCKu
KDbgJql5Vf3YG3K314UEflRRoAgxmidcEw.7C1EngcPSZAKpI_KqdYvWKTEw
fOVKwwiTv4kkCzX2VwVjnk1xCX8SHs_BX1u4RLmD_mw2wX3lN2YBi6.6heqe
ctor2FqVMeCXxXufVJ2LCLyPBNpW0OGl1ulu9dK5bgSGeqID0AW84UKW_Obt
CQBmXP1nngacsEXFkAEZ_fqbBguDUq.JV2.k1mrGUV_ga5kgol8zpNO2IsWY
e.4.4eaH86PHEGXzJ7ANdYGa9nFdsbV7ldxhmALVKtopKz8PPkmnHcveF0GV
22N61ZkUf4ZctVYCB_aB0a_VvO4PWsaeKxHgt9nNLTQtsb53m.WDk1T6iJSI
VnkDgZfgRYjJf8BNPuMferpOAgKma5HwGE1XmPT_kUVbYySI79.TTPsnkYYn
MQ4IwxJ4yI47WlnosJJPib1_2g8uxvUrat_6vF6yz5BpCEXfqPwMlxgpCHCh
TGNMDo40hKRc-
Received: from [76.250.116.214] by web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP;
Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:35:00 PDT
X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001,
TXkgdW5kZXJzdGFuZGluZyBpcyB0aGF0IHNpZGVjaGFpbnMgcmVxdWlyZSBtZXJnZWQgbWluaW5nIHN1cHBvcnQgYW5kIHRoYXQgc2lkZWNoYWlucyBjcmVhdGUgbm8gY29pbmJhc2UgdHJhbnNhY3Rpb25zIHRoZW1zZWx2ZXMuIFdoZW4gQml0Y29pbiBDb3JlIHN1cHBvcnRzIHRoZSB0d28td2F5IHBlZyB0aGVuIEkgd291bGQgdXBkYXRlIG15IHNvdXJjZSBjb2RlIGJyYW5jaCB0byBpbmNvcnBvcmF0ZSB0aGF0IG9yIGFueSBvdGhlciBjaGFuZ2UgdGhhdCBpcyByZWxlYXNlZC4gSWRlYWxseSwgd2hlbiBzaWQBMAEBAQE-
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.185.657
References: <1398382335.20219.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
<20140425073334.GV3180@nl.grid.coop>
<D95AE4AB-DC67-4136-901A-D8F712EB7357@acidhou.se>
Message-ID: <1398422100.68438.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:35:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Stephen Reed <stephenreed@yahoo.com>
To: Jeffrey Paul <sneak@acidhou.se>, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org>
In-Reply-To: <D95AE4AB-DC67-4136-901A-D8F712EB7357@acidhou.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
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
(stephenreed[at]yahoo.com)
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [216.109.114.203 listed in list.dnswl.org]
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
-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: 1WddTG-0000vP-MY
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proof-of-Stake branch?
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Stephen Reed <stephenreed@yahoo.com>
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: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:35:07 -0000
My understanding is that sidechains require merged mining support and that =
sidechains create no coinbase transactions themselves. When Bitcoin Core su=
pports the two-way peg then I would update my source code branch to incorpo=
rate that or any other change that is released. Ideally, when sidechains ca=
n work with PoW Bitcoin, then those same sidechains should work without any=
changes with PoS Bitcoin running in my testnet.=0A=0AI will be examining P=
PC, NXT and whitepapers for ideas that I can implement in such a way as the=
result can be called Bitcoin. The only difference would be the absence of =
wasteful Proof-of-Work, and the presence of mining rewards distributed to f=
ull nodes in proportion to the amount of bitcoin each is willing to expose =
to the network. Coin age is a good starting point. A reference peer-to-peer=
pool developed by me would be responsible for fairly distributing the mini=
ng rewards as daily dividend payments to PoS full node pool members.=0A=0AI=
n a few days, I plan to establish a Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin project thread i=
n the Project Development sub-forum of Bitcointalk. We can continue the tec=
hnical discussion there, starting with a list of principles.=0A=0A=0AStephe=
n L. Reed =0AAustin, Texas, USA =0A512.791.7860=0A=0AOn Friday, April 25, 2=
014 4:42 AM, Jeffrey Paul <sneak@acidhou.se> wrote:=0A=0AAre proof of stake=
blockchains compatible with the sidechain/two-way peg system invented by G=
reg (and maybe others - reports unclear)?=0A>=0A>http://letstalkbitcoin.com=
/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/=0A>=0A>It's my limited under=
standing that any sidechains in such a model are somewhat cryptographically=
tied to the PoW system that bitcoin's chain uses. I am seriously curious i=
f alternate decentralized consensus algorithms (proof of execution, proof o=
f stake, et c) are compatible with the sidechain universe as envisioned. =
=0A>=0A>Perhaps someone with a deeper technical understanding could explain=
how, if so, or if my incomplete hunch (that alternate consensus algorithms=
cannot retain compatibility with Bitcoin in a two way peg model) is correc=
t.=0A>=0A>These sorts of "alternate universe" altcoin experiments with diff=
erent proof models take on a different cost/benefit ratio if they can't eve=
r interoperate as sidechains, which is why I'm curious. =0A>=0A>Best,=0A>-j=
p=0A>=0A>-- =0A>Jeffrey Paul=A0=A0=A0+1 (312) 361-0355=0A>5539 AD00 DE4C 42=
F3 AFE1 1575 0524 43F4 DF2A 55C2=0A>=0A>=0A>> On 25.04.2014, at 00:33, Troy=
Benjegerdes <hozer@hozed.org> wrote:=0A>> =0A>> This also might be an inte=
resting application of the side=0A>> chains concept Peter Todd has discusse=
d.=0A>=0A>=A0
|
