📅 Original date posted:2021-05-09
📝 Original message:According to this paper:
https://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/coinscope/coinscope.pdf
PoW is also only resilient to 1/3rd of the network.
On Sat, 8 May 2021 at 14:46, Eric Martindale via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Mr. Singh,
>
> Proof of Stake is only resilient to ⅓ of the network demonstrating a
Byzantine Fault, whilst Proof of Work is resilient up to the ½ threshold.
You can explore prior research here:
https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
>
> Independent of the security thresholds, Proof of Stake requires other
trade-offs which are incompatible with Bitcoin's objective (to be a
trustless digital cash) — specifically the famous "security vs. liveness"
guarantee. Digital cash is not useful if it must be globally halted to
ensure its security, and Proof of Work squarely addresses this concern.
>
> Above and beyond any security consideration, Proof of Stake incentivizes
the accumulation of wealth within a small set of actors, which is
undesirable for the long-term health of any such network. If we are to
free humanity from the tyranny of the State, we must do so by protecting
the rights of every individual to hold and preserve their own value,
without trusting any third party. Entrusting the health of the network to
the "economic elite" is the paramount evil with respect to Bitcoin's
objectives, nevermind that Proof of Work relies on energy expenditure to
provide its security.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Eric Martindale, relentless maker.
> Founder & CEO, Fabric, Inc.
> +1 (919) 374-2020
>
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev <
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
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210509/120dd43f/attachment-0001.html>;
R E Broadley [ARCHIVE] /
npub12v…sppw8
2023-06-07 22:52:41
in reply to nevent1q…33l8
Author Public Key
npub12vzx6za9u8xhn6em7mq6msart7e42u2954mt3kzc7z7p0ux6f3lsxsppw8Published at
2023-06-07 22:52:41Event JSON
{
"id": "fa7f17f5f86eb5c666988ca45de82b1bf04bd3a24878fc97aa4b69726c3c531f",
"pubkey": "53046d0ba5e1cd79eb3bf6c1adc3a35fb3557145a576b8d858f0bc17f0da4c7f",
"created_at": 1686178361,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"3924236b4a6804e5062f43250316165d7329dbe370a76aa07c1a86d1bcab9697",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"857c53c020f01255c73c7f1a33edaad52c8a08ba290e286a54a29f452e99357b",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"092601597d30aa94c18773e5c3ebb3d83699778aa298e6d633db9e06da261ed7"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-05-09\n📝 Original message:According to this paper:\nhttps://www.cs.umd.edu/projects/coinscope/coinscope.pdf\n\nPoW is also only resilient to 1/3rd of the network.\n\nOn Sat, 8 May 2021 at 14:46, Eric Martindale via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e Mr. Singh,\n\u003e\n\u003e Proof of Stake is only resilient to ⅓ of the network demonstrating a\nByzantine Fault, whilst Proof of Work is resilient up to the ½ threshold.\nYou can explore prior research here:\nhttps://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf\n\u003e\n\u003e Independent of the security thresholds, Proof of Stake requires other\ntrade-offs which are incompatible with Bitcoin's objective (to be a\ntrustless digital cash) — specifically the famous \"security vs. liveness\"\nguarantee. Digital cash is not useful if it must be globally halted to\nensure its security, and Proof of Work squarely addresses this concern.\n\u003e\n\u003e Above and beyond any security consideration, Proof of Stake incentivizes\nthe accumulation of wealth within a small set of actors, which is\nundesirable for the long-term health of any such network. If we are to\nfree humanity from the tyranny of the State, we must do so by protecting\nthe rights of every individual to hold and preserve their own value,\nwithout trusting any third party. Entrusting the health of the network to\nthe \"economic elite\" is the paramount evil with respect to Bitcoin's\nobjectives, nevermind that Proof of Work relies on energy expenditure to\nprovide its security.\n\u003e\n\u003e Sincerely,\n\u003e\n\u003e Eric Martindale, relentless maker.\n\u003e Founder \u0026 CEO, Fabric, Inc.\n\u003e +1 (919) 374-2020\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hello list,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage\nof bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable\nresources but the impact is still high.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin\nmining in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle\ntested like proof of work. Though someday it will be.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented.\nSmaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford.\nHere's how I see this the possibilities:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e 1 - Proof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism\n\u003e\u003e 2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider\nimplementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of\ncontroversies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough\nto consider a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Love from India.\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210509/120dd43f/attachment-0001.html\u003e",
"sig": "f485d4eb839ff008be713276a82def0d4015b1fb84ac3d87ab81f55f69c44fc5dfc7e12ce12da4539439f92faeb6148908cbcd6946ab46c5a0d3edef205a15c2"
}