Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2017-04-07 📝 Original message:It is *not proof of ...
📅 Original date posted:2017-04-07
📝 Original message:It is *not proof of stake.* when:
a) burn happens regardless of whether you successfully mine.
b) miner cannot know which tx are burns
c) the majority of burns cannot be used for mining and are simply lost
(poisson discovery distribution)
d) burn involves real risk: *every bit as much at stake *
(It's the difference between a computer secured by not being connected to
the internet, and a computer secured by re-imaging from a computer that
was, in the past, not connected to the internet.)
It is possible to craft a burn-network such that the only way for a miner
to prevent a burn is to prevent all transactions other than his own.
This is still a weakness, and I can't see a way around it though.
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 6 April 2017 at 19:13, Alex Mizrahi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.
> linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork.
>>
>>
>> Much better analogy:
>>
>> 1. An ISV make software which makes use of an undocumented OS feature.
>> 2. That feature is no longer present in the next OS release.
>> 3. ISV suffers losses because its software cannot work under new OS, and
>> thus people stop buying it.
>>
>> I think 99% of programmers would agree that this loss was inflicted by a
>> bad decision of ISV, and not by OS vendor changing OS internals. Relying on
>> undocumented features is something you do on your own risk.
>>
>
> Right. And in this case, code still is law: if the code specifies a
> version number field and some miner finds an optimization that only works
> when the version number == 1 then it's his own problem once the network
> upgrades to version 2. In no way is there anything ethical about blocking
> the upgrade.
>
> History is not an indicator of the possible values any field can hold in
> the future. Limiting your operation to some arbitrary subset is at your own
> risk.
>
> Regarding the comparison: I haven't heard anyone even suggest rolling back
> the last year of the blockchain to undo the damage already done, any
> comparison can end there. If Jonathan wants to persist with this comparison
> it would be more like people deciding to stop further funding of the hacked
> contract. Yeah, that evil.
>
> --
> Jannes Faber
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> 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/20170407/0c0e32b0/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:It is *not proof of stake.* when:
a) burn happens regardless of whether you successfully mine.
b) miner cannot know which tx are burns
c) the majority of burns cannot be used for mining and are simply lost
(poisson discovery distribution)
d) burn involves real risk: *every bit as much at stake *
(It's the difference between a computer secured by not being connected to
the internet, and a computer secured by re-imaging from a computer that
was, in the past, not connected to the internet.)
It is possible to craft a burn-network such that the only way for a miner
to prevent a burn is to prevent all transactions other than his own.
This is still a weakness, and I can't see a way around it though.
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Jannes Faber via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On 6 April 2017 at 19:13, Alex Mizrahi via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.
> linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ethically, this situation has some similarities to the DAO fork.
>>
>>
>> Much better analogy:
>>
>> 1. An ISV make software which makes use of an undocumented OS feature.
>> 2. That feature is no longer present in the next OS release.
>> 3. ISV suffers losses because its software cannot work under new OS, and
>> thus people stop buying it.
>>
>> I think 99% of programmers would agree that this loss was inflicted by a
>> bad decision of ISV, and not by OS vendor changing OS internals. Relying on
>> undocumented features is something you do on your own risk.
>>
>
> Right. And in this case, code still is law: if the code specifies a
> version number field and some miner finds an optimization that only works
> when the version number == 1 then it's his own problem once the network
> upgrades to version 2. In no way is there anything ethical about blocking
> the upgrade.
>
> History is not an indicator of the possible values any field can hold in
> the future. Limiting your operation to some arbitrary subset is at your own
> risk.
>
> Regarding the comparison: I haven't heard anyone even suggest rolling back
> the last year of the blockchain to undo the damage already done, any
> comparison can end there. If Jonathan wants to persist with this comparison
> it would be more like people deciding to stop further funding of the hacked
> contract. Yeah, that evil.
>
> --
> Jannes Faber
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> 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/20170407/0c0e32b0/attachment-0001.html>;