personally, not speaking for anyone else, i think that proof-of-burn has a much higher likelihood of being a) good enough security and b) solving the nothing-at-stake problem
the only issue i see with a quality PoB implementation is a robust solution to the block-timing problem. https://grisha.org/blog/2018/01/23/explaining-proof-of-work/ i do think there *could* be other low-energy solutions to verifiable timing, just haven't seen one On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 6:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
