Stephen Reed [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2014-04-24 to 2015-03-05
💬 Posted a total of 4 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: Bitcoin-development
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-07 15:31:43

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2015-03-05
📝 Original message:You might consider the dimension taken by the cooperative mining approach of AI Coin, an altcoin that will launch April 27. The coin is an embodiment of principles described in my whitepaper last May, "Bitcoin Cooperative Proof of Stake".
http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5741
Currently we do not use staking, as network-wide algorithmic trustworthiness provides the security directly. Network operations, although highly automated with intelligent software agents, has a human-in-the-loop for oversight.
Our innovation enables immediate settlement of transactions. Peers in our network cooperate, taking turns creating new blocks. There is single version of the blockchain which is appended to by a single peer, and is replicated by the other peers. Our peers wrap Bitcoind instances, controlling transaction and new block routing to form a scalable super peer topology. Peers have self-signed X.509 certificates which encrypt messages and prevent impersonation. The tamper-evident technology that secures Bitcoin's blockchain and transactions is extended to secure the entire network. Inspired by an idea published by Nick Szabo, our peers maintain tamper-evident logs which are replayed, verified and signed by other peers. Aside from the whitepaper, more current technical information can be found on our forum - where I would be glad to answer questions and debate skeptics - instead of responding in this list off topic.
http://ai-cointalk.org
I would like thank those here and on IRC who last year encouraged me think outside the box.
-Steve
CTO AI Coin, Inc.
512.791.7960
http://ai-coin.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150305/24526fa2/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:21:51

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-05-20
📝 Original message:I completed a whitepaper for Bitcoin a proof-of-stake version which uses a single nomadic verifiable mint agent and distributed replication of a single blockchain by compensated full nodes to achieve 6-hop, sub-second transaction acknowledgement times. Plus it pays dividends to holders instead of wasting it on miners. Subsidized transaction fees are thus lower.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C4m-MFnxw0JjDorzrKs_IRQRqD9ila79o0IDt6KsbcE
Because the code is not yet written, this idea is half-baked so to speak. Comments appreciated on my project thread, which will be a development diary. I plan a hard fork of the Bitcoin blockchain in early 2016, after a year of public system testing, and conditioned on wide approval.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.msg6397403#msg6397403
-Steve
Stephen L. Reed
Austin, Texas, USA
512.791.7860
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20140520/a2e808e8/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 15:20:02

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-25
📝 Original message:My understanding is that sidechains require merged mining support and that sidechains create no coinbase transactions themselves. When Bitcoin Core supports the two-way peg then I would update my source code branch to incorporate that or any other change that is released. Ideally, when sidechains can work with PoW Bitcoin, then those same sidechains should work without any changes with PoS Bitcoin running in my testnet.
I will be examining PPC, NXT and whitepapers for ideas that I can implement in such a way as the result can be called Bitcoin. The only difference would be the absence of wasteful Proof-of-Work, and the presence of mining rewards distributed to full nodes in proportion to the amount of bitcoin each is willing to expose to the network. Coin age is a good starting point. A reference peer-to-peer pool developed by me would be responsible for fairly distributing the mining rewards as daily dividend payments to PoS full node pool members.
In a few days, I plan to establish a Proof-of-Stake Bitcoin project thread in the Project Development sub-forum of Bitcointalk. We can continue the technical discussion there, starting with a list of principles.
Stephen L. Reed
Austin, Texas, USA
512.791.7860
On Friday, April 25, 2014 4:42 AM, Jeffrey Paul <sneak at acidhou.se> wrote:
Are proof of stake blockchains compatible with the sidechain/two-way peg system invented by Greg (and maybe others - reports unclear)?
>
>http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blockchain-2-0-let-a-thousand-chains-blossom/
>
>It's my limited understanding that any sidechains in such a model are somewhat cryptographically tied to the PoW system that bitcoin's chain uses. I am seriously curious if alternate decentralized consensus algorithms (proof of execution, proof of stake, et c) are compatible with the sidechain universe as envisioned.
>
>Perhaps someone with a deeper technical understanding could explain how, if so, or if my incomplete hunch (that alternate consensus algorithms cannot retain compatibility with Bitcoin in a two way peg model) is correct.
>
>These sorts of "alternate universe" altcoin experiments with different proof models take on a different cost/benefit ratio if they can't ever interoperate as sidechains, which is why I'm curious.
>
>Best,
>-jp
>
>--
>Jeffrey Paul +1 (312) 361-0355
>5539 AD00 DE4C 42F3 AFE1 1575 0524 43F4 DF2A 55C2
>
>
>> On 25.04.2014, at 00:33, Troy Benjegerdes <hozer at hozed.org> wrote:
>>
>> This also might be an interesting application of the side
>> chains concept Peter Todd has discussed.
>
>

2023-06-07 15:20:00

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2014-04-24
📝 Original message: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.
-Steve
Stephen L. Reed
Austin, Texas, USA
512.791.7860