Author: Erik Aronesty 2021-04-16 20:48:35
Published on: 2021-04-16T20:48:35+00:00
The writer is unsure of the best place to workshop ideas, but presents three assumptions. The first assumption is that a proof-of-burn exists to accurately model the investment in and development of ASICs for Bitcoin's purposes. The second assumption is that the timing problem of how much burn is enough to maintain miner incentive is solvable. The third assumption is that everyone unanimously loves this idea. The transition would involve validating nodes requiring proof-of-burn in addition to proof-of-work, making it more expensive for miners, leading to a drop in POW. Eventually, POB required would increase to 100% of the "required work" to mine on a predefined schedule. The writer questions whether a hard fork would be necessary, suggesting that a back-compatible way could be used to transition to another required proof such as quantum POW or POB. Existing nodes not aware of the rules would continue to validate.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T20:16:22.498947+00:00