3 ms·

It's possible to design a blockchains that don't require brute-force computation. Bitcoin uses a "proof of work" algorithm, but Peercoin (for instance) uses "pr

by milcron 10y ago

It's possible to design a blockchains that don't require brute-force computation. Bitcoin uses a "proof of work" algorithm, but Peercoin (for instance) uses "proof of stake" which is a lot less CPU-intensive.

brighton36 10y ago
And peercoin stake grinded to oblivion. Andrew Poelstra writes extensively about the problems with non-work systems. (which are ancient technology)
- milcron 10y ago
  Are there any active attempts at finding alternatives to proof-of-work?
  - jude- 10y ago
    The fundamental problem seems to be that, when positioned against the same threat model as Bitcoin, all the PoW alternatives reduce to an obscured form of PoW. Put another way, a PoW alternative proposal must be designed such that participants can't increase profits expending more energy (for example, the fact that stake-grinding is profitable shows that Peercoin's PoS is really PoW-by-obscurity). As far as I know, this is still an open problem. There's an interesting primer on the subject here: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
  - aeijdenberg 10y ago
    If you can accept centralization (which for many non-crypto-currency use-cases actually makes sense, since it mirrors the way the real world works) - you don't actually need proof of work. You can still get the benefits of verifiability, append-only, detect misbehavior etc without it. See for example Certificate Transparency (RFC6962) for a standard that implements those properties using similar Merkle Tree constructions. Disclaimer, I have a startup that generalizes the same Verifiable Logs (and also allows for Verifiable Maps): https://www.continusec.com/ https://www.continusec.com/
    - mistermumble 10y ago
      But if you can accept centralization, then why not just use a conventional DBMS? (This is a real question, not a rhetorical argument.)
      - aeijdenberg 10y ago
        So that you (or other interested parties) can verify the correct operation of the centralized authority, and so that the central authority can prove that they aren't hiding anything. For example, in the case of certificate transparency, that the CAs aren't mis-issuing certificates, and further that the logs aren't conspiring to hide entries (such as via split views).
  - gst 10y ago
    Yes! IMO the most promising approach is Ethereum's Casper protocol. See http://vitalik.ca/files/mauve_paper3.html http://vitalik.ca/files/mauve_paper3.html for more details.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - polyomino 10y ago
    Burstcoin seems to be on the up and up. Proof of storage.
RyJones 10y ago
Look into Sawtooth Lake by Intel. It uses PoET (proof of elapsed time). https://www.google.com/amp/www.nasdaq.com/article/intel-develops-sawtooth-lake-distributed-ledger-technology-for-the-hyperledger-project-cm604632/amp?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.nasdaq.com/article/intel-deve...

by milcron 10y ago

brighton36 10y ago

And peercoin stake grinded to oblivion. Andrew Poelstra writes extensively about the problems with non-work systems. (which are ancient technology)

milcron 10y ago
Are there any active attempts at finding alternatives to proof-of-work?
- jude- 10y ago
  The fundamental problem seems to be that, when positioned against the same threat model as Bitcoin, all the PoW alternatives reduce to an obscured form of PoW. Put another way, a PoW alternative proposal must be designed such that participants can't increase profits expending more energy (for example, the fact that stake-grinding is profitable shows that Peercoin's PoS is really PoW-by-obscurity). As far as I know, this is still an open problem. There's an interesting primer on the subject here: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
- aeijdenberg 10y ago
  If you can accept centralization (which for many non-crypto-currency use-cases actually makes sense, since it mirrors the way the real world works) - you don't actually need proof of work. You can still get the benefits of verifiability, append-only, detect misbehavior etc without it. See for example Certificate Transparency (RFC6962) for a standard that implements those properties using similar Merkle Tree constructions. Disclaimer, I have a startup that generalizes the same Verifiable Logs (and also allows for Verifiable Maps): https://www.continusec.com/ https://www.continusec.com/
  - mistermumble 10y ago
    But if you can accept centralization, then why not just use a conventional DBMS? (This is a real question, not a rhetorical argument.)
    - aeijdenberg 10y ago
      So that you (or other interested parties) can verify the correct operation of the centralized authority, and so that the central authority can prove that they aren't hiding anything. For example, in the case of certificate transparency, that the CAs aren't mis-issuing certificates, and further that the logs aren't conspiring to hide entries (such as via split views).
- gst 10y ago
  Yes! IMO the most promising approach is Ethereum's Casper protocol. See http://vitalik.ca/files/mauve_paper3.html http://vitalik.ca/files/mauve_paper3.html for more details.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- polyomino 10y ago
  Burstcoin seems to be on the up and up. Proof of storage.

RyJones 10y ago

Look into Sawtooth Lake by Intel. It uses PoET (proof of elapsed time). https://www.google.com/amp/www.nasdaq.com/article/intel-develops-sawtooth-lake-distributed-ledger-technology-for-the-hyperledger-project-cm604632/amp?client=safari https://www.google.com/amp/www.nasdaq.com/article/intel-deve...