Gareth Williams [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2014-04-26 📝 Original message:Who said anything about a ...
📅 Original date posted:2014-04-26
📝 Original message:Who said anything about a re-org? The original block remains valid, your block reward is just zero, upon maturity, in light of a valid fraud proof.
ie. the "coinbase confiscation" that I was just arguing against in another thread :P but of course here based on cryptographic proof, not human judgement.
On 27 April 2014 11:22:07 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach <mark at monetize.io> wrote:
>That makes double-spends trivially easy: sign two blocks, withholding
>one. Then at a later point in time reveal the second signed block
>(demonstrating your own fraud) and force a reorg.
>
>On 04/26/2014 04:44 PM, Gareth Williams wrote:
>> What about using fraud proofs? Your coinbase only matures if nobody
>publishes proof that you signed a competing block.
>>
>> Then something is at least at stake. When it's your chance to sign a
>block, attempting to sign and publish more than one at the same height
>reliably punishes you (you effectively waste your chance and receive no
>reward.)
>>
>> I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been
>Vitalik Buterin?
>>
>> On 27 April 2014 6:39:28 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach <mark at monetize.io>
>wrote:
>>> There's no need to be confrontational. I don't think anyone here
>>> objects
>>> to the basic concept of proof-of-stake. Some people, myself
>included,
>>> have proposed protocols which involve some sort of proof of stake
>>> mechanism, and the idea itself originated as a mechanism for
>>> eliminating
>>> checkpoints, something which is very much on topic and of concern to
>>> many here.
>>>
>>> The problems come when one tries to *replace* proof-of-work mining
>with
>>> proof-of-stake "mining." You encounter problems related to the fact
>>> that
>>> with proof-of-stake nothing is actually at stake. You are free to
>sign
>>> as many different forks as you wish, and worse have incentive to do
>so,
>>> because whatever fork does win, you want it to be yours. In the
>worst
>>> case this results in double-spends at will, and in the best case
>with
>>> any of the various proposed protections deployed, it merely reduces
>to
>>> proof-of-work as miners grind blocks until they find one that names
>>> them
>>> or one of their sock puppets as the signer of the next block.
>>>
>>> I sincerely doubt you will find a solution to this, as it appears to
>be
>>> a fundamental issue with proof-of-stake, in that it must leverage an
>>> existing mechanism for enforced scarcity (e.g. proof-of-work) in
>order
>>> to work in a consensus algorithm. Is there some solution that you
>have
>>> in mind for this?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 04/25/2014 12:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
>>>> Do it. Someone will scream harm. The loudest voices screaming how
>it
>>> would
>>>> be harmful are doing the most harm.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to know is build it, and test it. If the network
>breaks,
>>> then
>>>> it is better we find out sooner rather than later.
>>>>
>>>> My only suggestion is call it 'bitstake' or something to clearly
>>> differentiate
>>>> it from Bitcoin. This also might be an interesting application of
>the
>>> side
>>>> chains concept Peter Todd has discussed.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:32:15PM -0700, Stephen Reed wrote:
>>>>> Hello all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that Proof-of-Stake as a replacement for
>Proof-of-Work
>>> is a prohibited yet disputed change to Bitcoin Core. I would like to
>>> create a Bitcoin branch that provides a sandboxed testbed for
>>> researching the best PoS implementations. In the years to come,
>perhaps
>>> circumstances might arise, such as shifting of user opinion as to
>>> whether PoS should be moved from the prohibited list to the
>hard-fork
>>> list.
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> A poll I conducted today on bitcointalk,
>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581635.0 with an
>>> attention-grabbing title suggests some minority support for Bitcoin
>>> Proof-of-Stake. I invite any of you to critically comment on that
>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Annual 10% bitcoin dividends can be ours if Proof-of-Stake full
>>> nodes outnumber existing Proof-of-Work full nodes by three-to-one.
>What
>>> is your choice?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I do not care or do not know enough." - 5 (16.1%)
>>>>> "I would download and run the existing Proof-of-Work program to
>>> fight the change." - 14 (45.2%)
>>>>> "I would download and run the new Proof-of-Stake program to favor
>>> the change. " - 12 (38.7%)
>>>>> Total Voters: 31
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I branch the source code and learn the proper way of doing
>>> things in this community, I ask you simply if creating the branch is
>>> harmful? My goal is to develop, test and document PoS, while
>exploring
>>> its vulnerabilities and fixing them in a transparent fashion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for taking a bit of your time to read this message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
>>> Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
>>> Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
>>> Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
>Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
>Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
>Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
📝 Original message:Who said anything about a re-org? The original block remains valid, your block reward is just zero, upon maturity, in light of a valid fraud proof.
ie. the "coinbase confiscation" that I was just arguing against in another thread :P but of course here based on cryptographic proof, not human judgement.
On 27 April 2014 11:22:07 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach <mark at monetize.io> wrote:
>That makes double-spends trivially easy: sign two blocks, withholding
>one. Then at a later point in time reveal the second signed block
>(demonstrating your own fraud) and force a reorg.
>
>On 04/26/2014 04:44 PM, Gareth Williams wrote:
>> What about using fraud proofs? Your coinbase only matures if nobody
>publishes proof that you signed a competing block.
>>
>> Then something is at least at stake. When it's your chance to sign a
>block, attempting to sign and publish more than one at the same height
>reliably punishes you (you effectively waste your chance and receive no
>reward.)
>>
>> I can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been
>Vitalik Buterin?
>>
>> On 27 April 2014 6:39:28 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach <mark at monetize.io>
>wrote:
>>> There's no need to be confrontational. I don't think anyone here
>>> objects
>>> to the basic concept of proof-of-stake. Some people, myself
>included,
>>> have proposed protocols which involve some sort of proof of stake
>>> mechanism, and the idea itself originated as a mechanism for
>>> eliminating
>>> checkpoints, something which is very much on topic and of concern to
>>> many here.
>>>
>>> The problems come when one tries to *replace* proof-of-work mining
>with
>>> proof-of-stake "mining." You encounter problems related to the fact
>>> that
>>> with proof-of-stake nothing is actually at stake. You are free to
>sign
>>> as many different forks as you wish, and worse have incentive to do
>so,
>>> because whatever fork does win, you want it to be yours. In the
>worst
>>> case this results in double-spends at will, and in the best case
>with
>>> any of the various proposed protections deployed, it merely reduces
>to
>>> proof-of-work as miners grind blocks until they find one that names
>>> them
>>> or one of their sock puppets as the signer of the next block.
>>>
>>> I sincerely doubt you will find a solution to this, as it appears to
>be
>>> a fundamental issue with proof-of-stake, in that it must leverage an
>>> existing mechanism for enforced scarcity (e.g. proof-of-work) in
>order
>>> to work in a consensus algorithm. Is there some solution that you
>have
>>> in mind for this?
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On 04/25/2014 12:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:
>>>> Do it. Someone will scream harm. The loudest voices screaming how
>it
>>> would
>>>> be harmful are doing the most harm.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to know is build it, and test it. If the network
>breaks,
>>> then
>>>> it is better we find out sooner rather than later.
>>>>
>>>> My only suggestion is call it 'bitstake' or something to clearly
>>> differentiate
>>>> it from Bitcoin. This also might be an interesting application of
>the
>>> side
>>>> chains concept Peter Todd has discussed.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:32:15PM -0700, Stephen Reed wrote:
>>>>> Hello all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that Proof-of-Stake as a replacement for
>Proof-of-Work
>>> is a prohibited yet disputed change to Bitcoin Core. I would like to
>>> create a Bitcoin branch that provides a sandboxed testbed for
>>> researching the best PoS implementations. In the years to come,
>perhaps
>>> circumstances might arise, such as shifting of user opinion as to
>>> whether PoS should be moved from the prohibited list to the
>hard-fork
>>> list.
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> A poll I conducted today on bitcointalk,
>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581635.0 with an
>>> attention-grabbing title suggests some minority support for Bitcoin
>>> Proof-of-Stake. I invite any of you to critically comment on that
>>> thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Annual 10% bitcoin dividends can be ours if Proof-of-Stake full
>>> nodes outnumber existing Proof-of-Work full nodes by three-to-one.
>What
>>> is your choice?"
>>>>>
>>>>> "I do not care or do not know enough." - 5 (16.1%)
>>>>> "I would download and run the existing Proof-of-Work program to
>>> fight the change." - 14 (45.2%)
>>>>> "I would download and run the new Proof-of-Stake program to favor
>>> the change. " - 12 (38.7%)
>>>>> Total Voters: 31
>>>>> -----
>>>>>
>>>>> Before I branch the source code and learn the proper way of doing
>>> things in this community, I ask you simply if creating the branch is
>>> harmful? My goal is to develop, test and document PoS, while
>exploring
>>> its vulnerabilities and fixing them in a transparent fashion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for taking a bit of your time to read this message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
>>> Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
>>> Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
>>> Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
>>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Start Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform
>Build your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software
>Java Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready
>Get Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform
>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.