LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-05-10 📝 Original message:Good Afternoon, ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-05-10
📝 Original message:Good Afternoon,
Proof-of-stake sounds like an altcoin fork. There is no consideration that proof-of-work is insufficient or that it can be improved upon, only that it should be regulated. Imagine, you are a gold miner with larger hands so you start a mining race and mine plenty more than everyone. Pretty soon everybody is employing all their available resources just to keep up in the mining race since there are only so many carts instead of just to leisurely utilise surplus resources for an opportune find. Each block is a new gold mine. It is enough for everybody to use leisurely resources.
I have initiated conversation previously regarding a method to regulate mining, and believe whole heartedly it should happen. That is necessary for the future stability of Bitcoin as it is clear the rate of work cannot be allowed to increase at such a rate. If you search the bitcoin-dev archives you will find discussion there under my email as we search for a solution.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 2021 1:01 AM
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Erik Aronesty <erik at q32.com>
Cc: SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh at protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
To reiterate some of the points here. My problem with proof of stake is twofold.
1. It requires permission of coin holders to enter into the system. This is not true of proof of work. You may even attempt (though not successfully) a proof of work with pencil and paper and submit the block from a regular laptop if you so choose. Whether this level of permissionlessness is necessary is up to individual risk tolerance etc. but it is definitely the default preference of Bitcoin.
2. Proof of stake must have a trusted means of timestamping to regulate overproduction of blocks. This introduction of trust is generally considered to be a nonstarter in Bitcoin. Proof of Work regulates this by making blocks fundamentally difficult to produce in the first place.
Like Jeremy, I’m always interested to learn about new attempts in consensus algorithms, but the bar to clear is very high and proof of stake to date has not proposed much less demonstrated a set of properties that is consistent with Bitcoins objectives.
Keagan
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:43 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 mining in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle tested 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 implementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of controversies 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210510/788958ad/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Good Afternoon,
Proof-of-stake sounds like an altcoin fork. There is no consideration that proof-of-work is insufficient or that it can be improved upon, only that it should be regulated. Imagine, you are a gold miner with larger hands so you start a mining race and mine plenty more than everyone. Pretty soon everybody is employing all their available resources just to keep up in the mining race since there are only so many carts instead of just to leisurely utilise surplus resources for an opportune find. Each block is a new gold mine. It is enough for everybody to use leisurely resources.
I have initiated conversation previously regarding a method to regulate mining, and believe whole heartedly it should happen. That is necessary for the future stability of Bitcoin as it is clear the rate of work cannot be allowed to increase at such a rate. If you search the bitcoin-dev archives you will find discussion there under my email as we search for a solution.
KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire
Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills
et al.
Willtech
www.willtech.com.au
www.go-overt.com
and other projects
earn.com/willtech
linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192
This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
________________________________
From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 2021 1:01 AM
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>; Erik Aronesty <erik at q32.com>
Cc: SatoshiSingh <SatoshiSingh at protonmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
To reiterate some of the points here. My problem with proof of stake is twofold.
1. It requires permission of coin holders to enter into the system. This is not true of proof of work. You may even attempt (though not successfully) a proof of work with pencil and paper and submit the block from a regular laptop if you so choose. Whether this level of permissionlessness is necessary is up to individual risk tolerance etc. but it is definitely the default preference of Bitcoin.
2. Proof of stake must have a trusted means of timestamping to regulate overproduction of blocks. This introduction of trust is generally considered to be a nonstarter in Bitcoin. Proof of Work regulates this by making blocks fundamentally difficult to produce in the first place.
Like Jeremy, I’m always interested to learn about new attempts in consensus algorithms, but the bar to clear is very high and proof of stake to date has not proposed much less demonstrated a set of properties that is consistent with Bitcoins objectives.
Keagan
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 8:43 AM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>> wrote:
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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at 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 mining in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle tested 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 implementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of controversies 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org<mailto:bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210510/788958ad/attachment-0001.html>;