>One needs a cost/benefit analysis, not just an account of the cost. For
example, if PoW could do calculations that are otherwise useful (maybe
solve a queue of standardized math-jobs, such as climate simulations) there
would be more benefit, or, let's say the data storage in proof-of-space is
1. i never suggested vdf's to replace pow.
2. my suggestion was specifically *in the context of* a working
proof-of-burn protocol
- vdfs used only for timing (not block height)
- blind-burned coins of a specific age used to replace proof of work
- the required "work" per block would simply be a
> Ultimately all currency security derives from energy consumption.
> Everything eventually resolves down to proof-of-work.
This is ideology. Yes, without energy and work, not many things happen. But
the amounts of energy and work to achieve a goal vary widely. Detailed
analysis comparing one
Nothing in a dynamic system like PoW mining can be 100% anticipated, for
example there might be advanced in manufacturing of chips which are patented
and so on.
It sounds like your take is that this means no improvements can ever be made by
any mechanism, however conservative.
We do go into
That’s interesting. I didn’t know the history of ASICBOOST.
Our proposal (see Implementation) is to phase in oPoW slowly starting at a very
low % of the rewards (say 1%). That should give a long testing period where
there is real financial incentive for things like ASICBOOST
Does that resolve
Hi ZmnSCPxj,
Please note that I am not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy, but
solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant.
Zac
On Tue, 18 May 2021 at 12:42, ZmnSCPxj wrote:
> Good morning Zac,
>
> > VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by
That’s a fair point about patents. However, note that we were careful about
this. oPoW only uses SHA3 (can be replaced with SHA256 in principle as well)
and low precision linear matrix multiplication. A whole industry is trying to
accelerate 8-bit linear matrix mults for AI so there is already
Devrandom is correct to point out that there is nuance to these things and it’s
better to look at the details rather than proclaiming that PoW is PoW. (I do
agree though w the original point that other ideas often turn out to reduce to
PoW despite their convoluted architecture)
A note on the
Good morning Prayank,
> But it will involve lot of exception handling.
Yes, that is precisely the problem here.
If you select a fixed feerate and then just broadcast-and-forget, you have no
real exceptions you have to handle --- but that means not using RBF at all.
Testing the handling of
Good morning Michael,
> Good morning Michael,
>
> > Nothing in a dynamic system like PoW mining can be 100% anticipated, for
> > example there might be advanced in manufacturing of chips which are
> > patented and so on.
> > It sounds like your take is that this means no improvements can ever
Good morning Michael,
> Nothing in a dynamic system like PoW mining can be 100% anticipated, for
> example there might be advanced in manufacturing of chips which are patented
> and so on.
>
> It sounds like your take is that this means no improvements can ever be made
> by any mechanism,
Good morning Prayank,
>
> > Of course the people ultimately funding the development must impose what
> >direction that development goes to, after all, it is their money that is
> >being modified. Thus development must follow the market.
>
> Disagree.
>
> 1.A position in a futures market about
Good morning Michael,
> That’s a fair point about patents. However, note that we were careful about
> this. oPoW only uses SHA3 (can be replaced with SHA256 in principle as well)
> and low precision linear matrix multiplication. A whole industry is trying to
> accelerate 8-bit linear matrix
Good morning devrandom,
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:
>
> > When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects
> > until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you
> > will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.
Good morning Zac,
> VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a
> two-step PoW:
>
> 1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being subject to
> difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of VDFs,
> miners are able show proof of
VDFs might enable more constant block times, for instance by having a
two-step PoW:
1. Use a VDF that takes say 9 minutes to resolve (VDF being subject to
difficulty adjustments similar to the as-is). As per the property of VDFs,
miners are able show proof of work.
2. Use current PoW mechanism
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:
>
> When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects
> until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you
> will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.
>
Let's not simplify away
>> This is not possible for rather obvious reasons:
>> 1. transaction sizes cannot be allowed to be unbounded because this
creates denial of service attacks for the broader network
>> 2. if the valid certificate set is not unbounded, then centralization
pressure will mount on the bound between the
Good morning Michael,
> Am 17.05.2021 um 04:58 schrieb Luke Dashjr:
>
> > It increases security, and is unavoidable anyway.
> > You can't.
>
> There must be a way. dRNG + universal clock + cryptographical magic?!
Proof-of-work **is** the cryptographic magic that creates a universal clock.
In
Good morning Anton,
> >> 4. My counter-proposal to the community to address energy consumption
> >> problems would be *to encourage users to allow only 'green miners'
> >> process>> their transaction.* In particular:
> >>...
> >> (b) Should there be some non-profit organization(s) certifying
Good morning Erik,
> Verifiable Delay Functions involve active participation of a single
> verifier. Without this a VDF decays into a proof-of-work (multiple
> verifiers === parallelism).
>
> The verifier, in this case is "the bitcoin network" taken as a whole.
> I think it is reasonable to
> A few things jump out at me as I read this proposal
>
> First, deriving the hardness from capex as opposed to opex switches the
> privilege from those who have cheap electricity to those who have access to
> chip manufacturers/foundries. While this is similarly the case for Bitcoin
> ASICS
22 matches
Mail list logo
