Cloud Strife [ARCHIVE] / is on Nostr

⚠️ This account is not associated with a real person. It's an archival account for mailing list messages.
🗓️ Active from 2020-06-25 to 2021-06-17
💬 Posted a total of 3 messages
📚 Participated in the following categories: bitcoin-dev
🔇 Please do not DM this user as it's used for archive purposes only.

Last Notes

2023-06-08 00:54:15

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-06-17
📝 Original message:Barrier to entry in PoW is matter for hardware and energy is permissionless
and exist all over the universe, permissionless cost which exists for
everyone no matter who because it's unforgeable.
Barrier to entry in PoS is being given permission by the previous owner of
a token for you to have it via transfer or sale, both choices they never
have to make since there are no continuous costs with producing blocks
forcing it. A permission is an infinitely high barrier to entry if the
previous owner, like the premining party, refuses to give up the token they
control.
You're skipping the part where you depend on a permission of a central
party in control of the authority token before you can produce blocks on
your rasberry Pi.
Proof of stake is not in any possible way relevant to permissionless
protocols, and thus not possibly relevant to decentralized protocols where
control must be distributed to independent (i.e. permissionless) parties.
There's nothing of relevance to discuss and this has been figured out long
long ago.
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy
https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:13 AM James MacWhyte via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> @Lloyd wrote:
>
> Of course in reality no one wants to keep their coin holding keys online
>> so in Alogorand you can authorize a set of "participation keys"[1] that
>> will be used to create blocks on your coin holding key's behalf.
>> Hopefully you've spotted the problem.
>> You can send your participation keys to any malicious party with a nice
>> website (see random example [2]) offering you a good return.
>> Damn it's still Proof-of-SquareSpace!
>>
>
> I believe we are talking about a comparison to PoW, correct? If you want
> to mine PoW, you need to buy expensive hardware and configure it to work,
> and wait a long time to get any return by solo mining. Or you can join a
> mining pool, which might use your hashing power for nefarious purposes. Or
> you might skip the hardware all together and fall for some "cloud mining"
> scheme with a pretty website and a high rate of advertised return. So as
> you can see, Proof-of-SquareSpace exists in PoW as well!
>
> The PoS equivalent of buying mining hardware is setting up your own
> validator and not outsourcing that to anyone else. So both PoW and PoS have
> the professional/expert way of participating, and the fraud-prone, amateur
> way of participating. The only difference is, with PoS the
> professional/expert way is accessible to anyone with a raspberry Pi and a
> web connection, which is a much lower barrier to entry than PoW.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210616/6692b76b/attachment.html>

2023-06-08 00:54:15

- reply

2023-06-08 00:52:40

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-05-09
📝 Original message:Proof of stake is permissioned by coins, an internal, permissioned, and
already owned resource.
You cannot gain tokens without someone choosing to give up those coins - a
form of permission. Permission can also be thought of as an infinite
barrier to entry.
PoW forces giving up control through both permissionless to enter mining
via EXTERNAL permissionless resources and unforgeable costliness for the
miners.
Without unforgeable costliness there's no reason to ever give up control in
PoS.
In fact, staking quite literally incentivizes keeping control by rewarding
those in control with more coins and control in perpetuity at no cost - the
incentives on PoS are completely backwards from decentralizing control.
Since no mechanism forces control to be permissionlessly distributed to
others, parties in control cannot be considered independent parties nor can
control be considered decentralized.
PoS solves nothing that's relevant to permissionless decentralized networks.
> In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented
It has been implemented since 2014 but it doesn't meet criteria for a
permissionless network. There's nothing new about implementing permissioned
networks.
You could try to replace proof of work with proof of bitcoin burn (not well
studied) on blockchains other than Bitcoin, but there's no known
replacement for proof of work for Bitcoin right now.
PoS has been considered and studied since then many times since then and
dismissed repeatedly for irrelevance to decentralized permissionless
technology, examples:
- https://nakamotoinstitute.org/research/on-stake-and-consensus/
-
https://medium.com/@factchecker9000/nothing-is-worse-than-proof-of-stake-e70b12b988ca
- https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
-
https://hugonguyen.medium.com/work-is-timeless-stake-is-not-554c4450ce18
- https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.06528
On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 10:49 AM Karl via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> What is more important;
>> Bitcoin mining introduces the first free-market demand for the cheapest
>> energy source.
>
>
> This is a really great idea but I think access to technologically advanced
> hardware is a stronger component than energy here.
>
> Making open community chip fabs might change that. Then anybody could get
> on the bandwagon. But right now the hardware barrier keeps the common
> person out.
>
> If you can build a chip fab, you may also be able to build a powerplant.
> Not many others can do that to compete with you. The energy economy still
> has more supply than competition or renewable energy would quickly
> outcompete nonrenewable as the price dropped.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b188b6b3/attachment-0001.html>

2023-06-08 00:52:40

- reply

2023-06-07 20:25:43

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2020-06-25
📝 Original message:Hi everyone,
I am hoping to get a critique on a proposal of how to
construct childchains "on-top" of Bitcoin without requiring any changes to
Bitcoin itself nor requiring any user or miner to be aware of them.
The childchain is Bitcoin-aware and simulates the properties of Proof of
Work by requiring continuous burning of Bitcoin in return for the fees on
the childchain.
The childchain tip is selected by highest total accumulated Bitcoin burnt
(with goal to simulate total accumulated work) for that full chained set of
childchain block commits.
The only asset on the childchain is a 2-way-peg coin that's secured in
value without oracles or collateral by requiring that each valid child
chain block must not only burn Bitcoin, but must always use a small % of
the burnt amount to deterministically reimburse withdrawals from the
childchain.
Childchain -> mainchain :: user burns the child-BTC and is added to
withdrawal queue filled as part of validity requirements by childchain
"miners" until filled 1:1 on mainchain or more. Note that occasionally
overpaying a widthdrawal does not break 1:1 peg as there's no fixed size
1:1 pool of coins necessary.
mainchain -> childchain :: user burns BTC (independent of mining
childchain) and is issued equivalent 1:1 child-BTC on the childchain
While childchains are less secure than the mainchain, both the childchain
security and the 2-way-peg accuracy might be an acceptable option for lower
value tx on scale determined by the burning rate.
Childchains would replace the need for any additional Proof of Work chains
for new blockchains to introduce any complexity (e.g. mimblewimble
childchain).
They would effectively use Proof of Work done on Bitcoin as proxy for
unforgeable costliness and benefit from Bitcoin's censorship resistance and
data availability. Large numbers of low value tx that might be priced out
of using the main chain could possibly in bulk provide enough childchain
fees combined through childchain miners to afford much higher mainchain
fees like "batching for fees".
It also has the "benefits" claimed by proof of stake like no energy
consumption without relying on internal permissions or tokens, trusted
distributions, or centralizing mechanisms like staking by simulating proof
of work. It should allow both growing the Bitcoin ecosystem and replace the
need to create alternative cryptocurrencies just to make a new blockchain.
More detailed write up available here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5214173.0
I am hoping for a review if there's an overlooked issue or maybe interest
to create a proof of concept.
Thank you
-CS
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20200625/9017f5d1/attachment.html>

2023-06-07 20:25:43

- reply