Discussion:
Proof-of-Loss
Add Reply
Mirelo via bitcoin-dev
2017-02-04 12:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, proof-of-loss addresses all their deficiencies, including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:

https://proof-of-loss.money/
Mirelo via bitcoin-dev
2017-04-05 19:12:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
With the feedback on Proof-of-Loss (always privately to my email), I realized the article was hard to understand for lacking:

* A more explicit definition of transaction rights.
* An overview of how the algorithm works.

As an abstract could not contain all that, I wrote an introduction with examples.

I also adopted a suggestion of including the current block height in the proof-of-loss data once I realized:

* Preventing the same proof-of-loss from chaining consecutive blocks was not the purpose of the proof-of-loss context, which did it statistically rather than logically.
* The presence of that height in the block header made serial chaining easier to enforce, by removing the need to include additional block height information.

While revising the algorithm, I made some corrections, mainly to:

* Transaction prioritization (which now uses fees instead of rights).
* Inactivity fees.

Finally, the new version more aptly derives the design and often has better wording.

The new text is available at:

https://proof-of-loss.money/

Mirelo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proof-of-Loss
Local Time: February 4, 2017 10:39 AM
UTC Time: February 4, 2017 12:39 PM
From: ***@deugh-ausgam-valis.com
To: bitcoin-***@lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-***@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, proof-of-loss addresses all their deficiencies, including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:

https://proof-of-loss.money/
Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev
2017-04-06 02:43:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Is this the same as proof of burn?

On Apr 5, 2017 5:28 PM, "Mirelo via bitcoin-dev" <
Post by Mirelo via bitcoin-dev
With the feedback on Proof-of-Loss (always privately to my email), I
* A more explicit definition of transaction rights.
* An overview of how the algorithm works.
As an abstract could not contain all that, I wrote an introduction with examples.
I also adopted a suggestion of including the current block height in the
* Preventing the same proof-of-loss from chaining consecutive blocks was
not the purpose of the proof-of-loss context, which did it statistically
rather than logically.
* The presence of that height in the block header made serial chaining
easier to enforce, by removing the need to include additional block height
information.
* Transaction prioritization (which now uses fees instead of rights).
* Inactivity fees.
Finally, the new version more aptly derives the design and often has better wording.
https://proof-of-loss.money/
Mirelo
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proof-of-Loss
Local Time: February 4, 2017 10:39 AM
UTC Time: February 4, 2017 12:39 PM
linuxfoundation.org>
An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and
proof-of-stake, *proof-of-loss* addresses all their deficiencies,
including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining
*https://proof-of-loss.money/ <https://proof-of-loss.money/>*
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Mirelo via bitcoin-dev
2017-04-06 05:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Erik,

No, it is not, but I would like to ask anyone with any feedback on proof-of-loss to please direct it only to my email, or else follow the discussion links on the Proof-of-Loss home page.

Thanks,

Mirelo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss
Local Time: April 5, 2017 11:43 PM
UTC Time: April 6, 2017 2:43 AM
From: ***@gmail.com
To: Mirelo <***@deugh-ausgam-valis.com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-***@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

Is this the same as proof of burn?

On Apr 5, 2017 5:28 PM, "Mirelo via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-***@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
With the feedback on Proof-of-Loss (always privately to my email), I realized the article was hard to understand for lacking:

* A more explicit definition of transaction rights.
* An overview of how the algorithm works.

As an abstract could not contain all that, I wrote an introduction with examples.

I also adopted a suggestion of including the current block height in the proof-of-loss data once I realized:

* Preventing the same proof-of-loss from chaining consecutive blocks was not the purpose of the proof-of-loss context, which did it statistically rather than logically.
* The presence of that height in the block header made serial chaining easier to enforce, by removing the need to include additional block height information.

While revising the algorithm, I made some corrections, mainly to:

* Transaction prioritization (which now uses fees instead of rights).
* Inactivity fees.

Finally, the new version more aptly derives the design and often has better wording.

The new text is available at:

https://proof-of-loss.money/

Mirelo

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Proof-of-Loss
Local Time: February 4, 2017 10:39 AM
UTC Time: February 4, 2017 12:39 PM
From: ***@deugh-ausgam-valis.com
To: bitcoin-***@lists.linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-***@lists.linuxfoundation.org>

An alternative consensus algorithm to both proof-of-work and proof-of-stake, proof-of-loss addresses all their deficiencies, including the lack of an organic block size limit, the risks of mining centralization, and the "nothing at stake" problem:

https://proof-of-loss.money/

Loading...