Proof-of-Loss

Proof-of-Loss
2017-04-05 19:12 ` Mirelo
  
From: Mirelo @ 2017-02-04 12:39 UTC ( / )
  To: bitcoin-dev



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/
2017-02-04 12:39 [bitcoin-dev] Proof-of-Loss Mirelo

  2017-04-06  2:43   ` Erik Aronesty
  
From: Mirelo @ 2017-04-05 19:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]

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: mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@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/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2954 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-04-05 19:12 ` Mirelo

  2017-04-06  5:47     ` Mirelo
  
From: Erik Aronesty @ 2017-04-06  2:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mirelo, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2038 bytes --]

Is this the same as proof of burn?

On Apr 5, 2017 5:28 PM, "Mirelo via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@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: mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com
> To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@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/ <https://proof-of-loss.money/>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4368 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2017-04-06  2:43   ` Erik Aronesty

  
From: Mirelo @ 2017-04-06  5:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: erik;  Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2385 bytes --]

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: earonesty@gmail•com
To: Mirelo <mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com>, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>

Is this the same as proof of burn?

On Apr 5, 2017 5:28 PM, "Mirelo via bitcoin-dev" <bitcoin-dev@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: mirelo@deugh-ausgam-valis•com
To: bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org <bitcoin-dev@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/

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5602 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
From: Mirelo @ 2018-01-04 10:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin-dev

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

Hi,

The paper now includes the pseudocode for block validation:

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

Again, please direct any feedback to my email.

Regards,

Mirelo

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 358 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]