Author: Michael Dubrovsky 2021-05-19 15:30:36
Published on: 2021-05-19T15:30:36+00:00
In a bitcoin-dev mailing list, Michael Dubrovsky suggested to keep the discussion focused on PoW, oPoW, and the BIP itself, instead of discussing PoS, VDFs, and other alternatives to Hashcash. He emphasized the importance of distinguishing oPoW from these alternatives, as oPoW is a true Proof of Work that does not alter the core game theory or security assumptions of Hashcash and actually contains SHA. Erik Aronesty responded to a previous suggestion by stating that he never suggested VDFs to replace PoW. His suggestion was specifically in the context of a working proof-of-burn protocol, where VDFs are used only for timing, while blind-burned coins of a specific age are used to replace PoW. The miner risks losing all of his burned coins like all miners risk losing their work in each block, and old burns age out like ASICs do. Zac Greenwood also clarified that he was not suggesting VDFs as a means to save energy but solely as a means to make the time between blocks more constant. However, ZmnSCPxj pointed out another weakness of VDFs, which is that they are not inherently progress-free. Thus, a miner who focuses on improving the amount of energy pumped into the VDF circuitry could potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation, leading to even worse competition and more energy consumption.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T20:51:13.548470+00:00