What is Nostr?
Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] /
npub1y22…taj0
2023-06-07 22:51:51
in reply to nevent1q…rh27

Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: πŸ“… Original date posted:2021-04-16 πŸ“ Original message:Not sure of the best place ...

πŸ“… Original date posted:2021-04-16
πŸ“ Original message:Not sure of the best place to workshop ideas, so please take this with
a grain of salt.

Starting with 3 assumptions:

- assume that there exists a proof-of-burn that, for Bitcoin's
purposes, accurately-enough models the investment in and development
of ASICs to maintain miner incentive.
- assume the resulting timing problem "how much burn is enough to keep
blocks 10 minutes apart and what does that even mean" is also...
perfectly solvable
- assume "everyone unanimously loves this idea"

The transition *could* look like this:

- validating nodes begin to require proof-of-burn, in addition to
proof-of-work (soft fork)
- the extra expense makes it more expensive for miners, so POW slowly drops
- on a predefined schedule, POB required is increased to 100% of the
"required work" to mine

Given all of that, am I correct in thinking that a hard fork would not
be necessary?

IE: We could transition to another "required proof" - such as a
quantum POW or a POB (above) or something else .... in a back-compat
way (existing nodes not aware of the rules would continue to
validate).
Author Public Key
npub1y22yec0znyzw8qndy5qn5c2wgejkj0k9zsqra7kvrd6cd6896z4qm5taj0