Good Afternoon,
Proof-of-stake sounds like an altcoin fork. There is no consideration that
proof-of-work is insufficient or that it can be improved upon, only that it
should be regulated. Imagine, you are a gold miner with larger hands so you
start a mining race and mine plenty more than
re: 2, there's been some promising developments with Verifiable Delay
Functions that make me think that the block regulation problems are
solvable without requiring brute-force search proof of work. Are those
inapplicable for some reason?
___
bitcoin-dev
Thank you for your reply Tobias,
I don't think that the chicken-egg scenario is relevant, but please let me
explain why:
Wallet A = seed words (A) - add minimal funds as a canary/sacrificial wallet
Wallet B = seed words (B) - add minimal funds as a canary/sacrificial wallet
Wallet AB = seed
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.
To reiterate some of the points here. My problem with proof of stake is
twofold.
1. It requires permission of coin holders to enter into the system. This is
not true of proof of work. You may even attempt (though not successfully) a
proof of work with pencil and paper and submit the block from a
