ergency protocol like ignoring the new fork.
Regards,
From: ZmnSCPxj
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 6:14
To: Kenshiro []
Cc: Eric Voskuil ; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Secure Proof Of Stake implementation on Bitcoin
Good m
Good morning Kenshiro and list,
I apologize for the unnecessarily toxic words I used in replies to you,
Kenshiro.
I also apologize to subscribers of the list for this behavior.
Such behavior should not be tolerated and should be called out.
Just to be clear, I do not think your additions to the
are only 2 stakers,
because there is always plenty of little stakers, even if all the small stakers
together have only 1% of coins or less.
Regards,
From: ZmnSCPxj
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 13:07
To: Kenshiro []
Cc: Eric Voskuil; Bitcoin Protocol Discussi
Good morning Kenshiro,
>
> >>> For example, if you are capable of disrupting a coin such that its value
> >>>is very likely to drop, you can buy short options as leverage.
> Suppose you hold a large stake of coins and know you control a significant
> fraction, enough that a censorship attack
ing
weight to coins together in a single UTXO, because there is wait time for each
staking deposit.
Regards,
From: ZmnSCPxj
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:45
To: Kenshiro []
Cc: Eric Voskuil; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Secure Proof Of Stake implem
Good morning Kenshiro,
> >>> I already told you that it is always possible to get around this:
> >>>leverage by use of short options.
> Short the coin to attack, then perform your attack by censorship.
> Coin value will drop due to reduced utility of the coin, then you reap the
> rewards of the
ut their staking
deposit in a single address to avoid a strong penalty in their staking weight,
and having their coins together they can't avoid the wait time with the "stake
in many addresses" trick "
Regards,
From: Eric Voskuil
Sent: Friday, July 1
oW if Bitcoin price rises a lot, like one million dollars or more? Because if
it's proportional to the price, it could be like 100 times the current energy
waste.
Regards,
____
From: ZmnSCPxj
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2019 5:45
To: Kenshiro []
Cc: Eric Voskuil; Bitcoi
ifficult
issues like finding reasons to justify the energy waste and heat generation of
PoW when Bitcoin price reaches 1 million dollars
Regards,
________
From: ZmnSCPxj
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 16:15
To: Kenshiro []
Cc: Eric Voskuil; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> On Jul 18, 2019, at 20:45, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
>
> Good morning Kenshiro,
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:50 PM, Kenshiro [] wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
> A 51% attack under proof-of-work is only possible, in
Good morning Kenshiro,
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 11:50 PM, Kenshiro [] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> >>> A 51% attack under proof-of-work is only possible, in general, if some
> >>>singular entity were able to have physical control
Good morning,
> I think there is some misunderstanding here. A single node can be isolated
> from the rest of the network any time and when it reconnects it only has to
> follow the longest chain as always. Checking with a block-explorer or a
> friend's node is only required under the extreme
a
>>> different implementation that I'm proposing here.
>>>Just another nail in the coffin.
Do you think Ethereum PoS will fail?
Regards,
________
From: ZmnSCPxj
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 3:13
To: Eric Voskuil
Cc: Kenshiro []; Bitcoin Protocol Dis
Good morning all,
> > >>>Under the trust-minimization requirement of Bitcoin this is simply not
> > >>>acceptable.
> > As there is no way to trust-minimally heal from a network split (and every
> > time a node is shut down, that is indistinguishable from a network split
> > that isolates that
yet either.
> https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/nxt
>
> Another thing is that Ethereum itself is going to PoS next year, but with a
> different implementation that I'm proposing here.
Just another nail in the coffin.
Best,
Eric
> Regards,
>
>
> From: ZmnSCPxj
> Sent
entation that I'm proposing here.
Regards,
From: ZmnSCPxj
Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2019 1:00
To: Kenshiro \[\]; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Secure Proof Of Stake implementation on Bitcoin
Good morning Kenshiro,
Sent with ProtonMail
Good morning Kenshiro,
> 4 - In any given block, only one staker gets the authorization to create that
> block, so other stakers can't spam the network with many different blocks as
> they are illegal.
This leaves the consensus algorithm liable to stake-grinding attacks.
Often, the selection
Good morning Kenshiro,
Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 8:33 PM, Kenshiro \[\] via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After studying several Proof of Stake implementations I think it's not only
> an eco-friendly (and more ethical)
: Oscar Lafarga
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 22:35
To: Kenshiro []; Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Secure Proof Of Stake implementation on Bitcoin
Hi Kenshiro,
I don't think your proposal would require any changes to the Bitcoin Core
implementation. This system you describe
Hi Kenshiro,
I don't think your proposal would require any changes to the Bitcoin Core
implementation. This system you describe seems like it would operate as an
independent addition, rather than an alternative to the Proof of Work
consensus code that runs within Bitcoin now. It introduces
Hi,
After studying several Proof of Stake implementations I think it's not only an
eco-friendly (and more ethical) alternative to Proof of Work, but correctly
implemented could be 100% secure against all 51% history rewrite attacks. Over
a "standard" PoS protocol like PoS v3.0, only 2 extra
21 matches
Mail list logo
