š
Original date posted:2015-06-12
š Original message:On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:39:21PM +0200, Benjamin wrote:
> This is a misguided idea, to say the least. If such a mechanism of of
> user input would be possible, one would use it for transaction
> verification in the first place. In proof-of-stake outcomes are
> determined by vote by stake (that vote has very different
> characteristics than vote by compute power). There is no such thing as
> making it possible to determine what "users want". That's what the
> proof-of-work mechanism does in the first place, only that it is now
> unfortunately skewed/corrupted/(whatever you want to call it). Before
> centralization the concept of "miners" didn't exist in Bitcoin and
> miners were roughly identical to users. Peer-to-Peer implies only one
> class of users.
>
> A big problem with such a vote (in PoW and PoS): miners get paid for
> their work and have incentives to raise fees. Those who pay fees would
> have no say in whether those fees are fair or not. Transaction
> verification has to be roughly profitable, but there is no fixed
> formula for determining profitability.
Read John Dillon's proposal then, which via proof-of-stake explicitly
approportions control of increases via % of Bitcoin owned.
Anyway, representing everyone is never going to be easy, but at least
this nVersion thing is very easy to implement.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 650 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150612/9fb17544/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 15:37:29
in reply to nevent1qā¦k2af
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 15:37:29Event JSON
{
"id": "fb222d69bffa7413743cfd21c60233b069f7a88bf4fd946ea54b89a8f2228cd5",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686152249,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8a807127e1ae5b585bcc8f3578413a7d3eb1bd30e75c19cd4a3a0a256adcb61c",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bb4ea8e898375b1d127d840ee24f19eb15fb71a771cf1030b45f9815c5959971",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f5854a07c480aa95b00a3106a17778f7b58221d8dd12d11e6d9465ba737bd50c"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-06-12\nš Original message:On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 08:39:21PM +0200, Benjamin wrote:\n\u003e This is a misguided idea, to say the least. If such a mechanism of of\n\u003e user input would be possible, one would use it for transaction\n\u003e verification in the first place. In proof-of-stake outcomes are\n\u003e determined by vote by stake (that vote has very different\n\u003e characteristics than vote by compute power). There is no such thing as\n\u003e making it possible to determine what \"users want\". That's what the\n\u003e proof-of-work mechanism does in the first place, only that it is now\n\u003e unfortunately skewed/corrupted/(whatever you want to call it). Before\n\u003e centralization the concept of \"miners\" didn't exist in Bitcoin and\n\u003e miners were roughly identical to users. Peer-to-Peer implies only one\n\u003e class of users.\n\u003e \n\u003e A big problem with such a vote (in PoW and PoS): miners get paid for\n\u003e their work and have incentives to raise fees. Those who pay fees would\n\u003e have no say in whether those fees are fair or not. Transaction\n\u003e verification has to be roughly profitable, but there is no fixed\n\u003e formula for determining profitability.\n\nRead John Dillon's proposal then, which via proof-of-stake explicitly\napproportions control of increases via % of Bitcoin owned.\n\n\nAnyway, representing everyone is never going to be easy, but at least\nthis nVersion thing is very easy to implement.\n\n-- \n'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n0000000000000000127ab1d576dc851f374424f1269c4700ccaba2c42d97e778\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 650 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150612/9fb17544/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "9a35458e18dca5a7713d16410cd32c9b621301b5601293027183fdd11a51b14178b065966f07b60ec28c080f67dcc56140ae80bf0f46cafc918db5d1c1efa5a7"
}