📅 Original date posted:2014-04-26
📝 Original message: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
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Gareth Williams [ARCHIVE] /
npub1jk…373ck
2023-06-07 15:20:00
in reply to nevent1q…fxgy
Author Public Key
npub1jkdfcglr59lwnhek94l393g0hhhaj0v5yzz3n5s3p0r9u0576sgs7373ckPublished at
2023-06-07 15:20:00Event JSON
{
"id": "0aac1a61f3ba370c14b9b7d06afe37b748b833d9dcfdd9254a00cf5720b9c171",
"pubkey": "959a9c23e3a17ee9df362d7f12c50fbdefd93d94208519d2110bc65e3e9ed411",
"created_at": 1686151200,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cd0d01e3b1b2854667eaaac9d0972d6218f0a348ce5d02f0fb2cdd5e3b69a406",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"20519722daf030fa1bb841f9c7b0cc074a8655e7c75a661600792761c16ba3b3",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1c61d995949cbfaf14f767784e166bde865c7b8783d7aa3bf0a1d014b70c0069"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2014-04-26\n📝 Original message:What about using fraud proofs? Your coinbase only matures if nobody publishes proof that you signed a competing block. \n\nThen 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.)\n\nI can't remember who I saw discussing this idea. Might have been Vitalik Buterin?\n\nOn 27 April 2014 6:39:28 AM AEST, Mark Friedenbach \u003cmark at monetize.io\u003e wrote:\n\u003eThere's no need to be confrontational. I don't think anyone here\n\u003eobjects\n\u003eto the basic concept of proof-of-stake. Some people, myself included,\n\u003ehave proposed protocols which involve some sort of proof of stake\n\u003emechanism, and the idea itself originated as a mechanism for\n\u003eeliminating\n\u003echeckpoints, something which is very much on topic and of concern to\n\u003emany here.\n\u003e\n\u003eThe problems come when one tries to *replace* proof-of-work mining with\n\u003eproof-of-stake \"mining.\" You encounter problems related to the fact\n\u003ethat\n\u003ewith proof-of-stake nothing is actually at stake. You are free to sign\n\u003eas many different forks as you wish, and worse have incentive to do so,\n\u003ebecause whatever fork does win, you want it to be yours. In the worst\n\u003ecase this results in double-spends at will, and in the best case with\n\u003eany of the various proposed protections deployed, it merely reduces to\n\u003eproof-of-work as miners grind blocks until they find one that names\n\u003ethem\n\u003eor one of their sock puppets as the signer of the next block.\n\u003e\n\u003eI sincerely doubt you will find a solution to this, as it appears to be\n\u003ea fundamental issue with proof-of-stake, in that it must leverage an\n\u003eexisting mechanism for enforced scarcity (e.g. proof-of-work) in order\n\u003eto work in a consensus algorithm. Is there some solution that you have\n\u003ein mind for this?\n\u003e\n\u003eMark\n\u003e\n\u003eOn 04/25/2014 12:33 AM, Troy Benjegerdes wrote:\n\u003e\u003e Do it. Someone will scream harm. The loudest voices screaming how it\n\u003ewould\n\u003e\u003e be harmful are doing the most harm.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e The only way to know is build it, and test it. If the network breaks,\n\u003ethen\n\u003e\u003e it is better we find out sooner rather than later.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e My only suggestion is call it 'bitstake' or something to clearly\n\u003edifferentiate\n\u003e\u003e it from Bitcoin. This also might be an interesting application of the\n\u003eside\n\u003e\u003e chains concept Peter Todd has discussed.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 04:32:15PM -0700, Stephen Reed wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Hello all.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e I understand that Proof-of-Stake as a replacement for Proof-of-Work\n\u003eis a prohibited yet disputed change to Bitcoin Core. I would like to\n\u003ecreate a Bitcoin branch that provides a sandboxed testbed for\n\u003eresearching the best PoS implementations. In the years to come, perhaps\n\u003ecircumstances might arise, such as shifting of user opinion as to\n\u003ewhether PoS should be moved from the prohibited list to the hard-fork\n\u003elist.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e -----\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e A poll I conducted today on bitcointalk,\n\u003ehttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=581635.0 with an\n\u003eattention-grabbing title suggests some minority support for Bitcoin\n\u003eProof-of-Stake. I invite any of you to critically comment on that\n\u003ethread.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \"Annual 10% bitcoin dividends can be ours if Proof-of-Stake full\n\u003enodes outnumber existing Proof-of-Work full nodes by three-to-one. What\n\u003eis your choice?\"\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e \"I do not care or do not know enough.\" - 5 (16.1%) \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \"I would download and run the existing Proof-of-Work program to\n\u003efight the change.\" - 14 (45.2%) \n\u003e\u003e\u003e \"I would download and run the new Proof-of-Stake program to favor\n\u003ethe change. \" - 12 (38.7%) \n\u003e\u003e\u003e Total Voters: 31 \n\u003e\u003e\u003e -----\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Before I branch the source code and learn the proper way of doing\n\u003ethings in this community, I ask you simply if creating the branch is\n\u003eharmful? My goal is to develop, test and document PoS, while exploring\n\u003eits vulnerabilities and fixing them in a transparent fashion.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Thanks for taking a bit of your time to read this message.\n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\u003e \n\u003e\n\u003e------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\u003eStart Your Social Network Today - Download eXo Platform\n\u003eBuild your Enterprise Intranet with eXo Platform Software\n\u003eJava Based Open Source Intranet - Social, Extensible, Cloud Ready\n\u003eGet Started Now And Turn Your Intranet Into A Collaboration Platform\n\u003ehttp://p.sf.net/sfu/ExoPlatform\n\u003e_______________________________________________\n\u003eBitcoin-development mailing list\n\u003eBitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net\n\u003ehttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development\n\n-- \nSent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.",
"sig": "e5f894f99cfe2f1cd6d5d7b001b2638354d3870fe7e7959f6a858dca496bb3dc1772d61d844b28e0145ab6146b8ebae7cbf343ffc5b30dac7d30827176b4ef11"
}