Author: Lloyd Fournier 2021-05-23 03:41:12
Published on: 2021-05-23T03:41:12+00:00
The first context discusses the writer's argument against implementing Proof-of-Stake (PoS) in a Bitcoin-like system, as it assigns responsibilities to coin holders who may not handle them. The writer analyzes two types of PoS protocols and concludes that delegation creates new social attack surfaces and makes everything too exciting, which is not desirable in a digital gold system like Bitcoin. The article prioritizes simplicity and aims to avoid extraneous responsibilities for the holder of the coin. It states that the market will ultimately determine what constitutes real digital gold and whether the technical trade-offs are worth it.In the second context, there is a discussion on various alternatives to Hashcash, such as PoS and VDFs, but it is agreed that these topics belong in other threads. The main topic centers on oPoW, which is interchangeable with Hashcash and contains SHA. Erik Aronesty suggests a working proof-of-burn protocol using VDFs solely for timing and blind-burned coins of a specific age to replace PoW, with the idea being to require miners to burn coins well in advance and hope that their burned coins get rewarded in some far future. Zac Greenwood proposes a two-step PoW system, where a VDF shows proof of work, followed by the current PoW mechanism at a lower difficulty so finding a block takes one minute on average. However, ZmnSCPxj points out that VDFs are not inherently progress-free and that miners could potentially get into a winner-takes-all situation by focusing on improving the energy they can pump into the VDF circuitry, leading to even worse competition and more energy consumption. The conversation ends with Michael Dubrovsky, the founder of PoWx, signing off.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T21:07:22.431869+00:00