Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

cs.princeton.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 232 posts

Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

#21

Post by jtsiskin »

netcruiser wrote: post #5

Sounds like its based on a flawed assumption: "Now, immediately after a block is found, there will be no more transactions in the network to be claimed by a miner making the next block" The fact is there is usually a large backlog of transactions.

I think the analysis still hold even with a transaction backlog, as long as the fees in these transactions are exponential distributed (a few very high value txs, then it trails off quickly)

However I have know idea if this is close to what it really looks like.

Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

#22

Post by cyphertruck »

netcruiser wrote: post #5

Sounds like its based on a flawed assumption: "Now, immediately after a block is found, there will be no more transactions in the network to be claimed by a miner making the next block" The fact is there is usually a large backlog of transactions.

The large backlog these days is mostly spam transactions with almost no fees. Bitcoin has increased capacity dramatically in the past decade.

Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

#23

Post by xiphias2 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #15

Why can't Bitcoin simply transition to proof of stake after mining dries up? Once there are few or no bitcoins left to mine then PoW is a lot of ceremony for very little security gain at that point (and perhaps opens up risks that this paper points out).

It's because just because you write ,,simply'', it's not a simple thing. Just as an example Ethereum was trying hard to do it for many years now without any success.

But the real reason is that there is no real solid formally written and proven ,,proof of stake'' algorithm so far.

Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

#24

Post by elcomet »

xiphias2 wrote: post #3

This is the first interesting paper I see here on HN about Bitcoin. While many people think that Bitcoin's energy usage is too high, I honestly hope that it's high enough to deter a nation state sized attacker. Many Bitcoiners argue that miner rewards shouldn't decrease more, but at the same time it's too late to change the concensus on it.

> I honestly hope that it's high enough to deter a nation state sized attacker.

What's the point though? Bitcoin has no real use case apart from speculation.

Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

#25

Post by cyphertruck »

Paul-E wrote: post #14
netcruiser wrote: post #5

Sounds like its based on a flawed assumption: "Now, immediately after a block is found, there will be no more transactions in the network to be claimed by a miner making the next block" The fact is there is usually a large backlog of transactions.

This paper was published when there were big fights going on about whether the block size should be increased. Om camp argued for the status quo, which was causing high transaction fees and long backlogs. The other camp argued for a larger block size, which would reduce or eliminate the transaction backlog. Eliminating the backlog was generally considered a good thing, and the arguments were mostly around the block s…

Not to disagree, but to emphasize that the idea that the only way to increase bitcoin capacity is increasing the block size is in error. You didn't push that idea but others do.

Nearly every release of bitcoin over past 8 years has increased capacity or efficiency, often both.

Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

#27

Post by tromp »

chrisco255 wrote: post #15

Why can't Bitcoin simply transition to proof of stake after mining dries up? Once there are few or no bitcoins left to mine then PoW is a lot of ceremony for very little security gain at that point (and perhaps opens up risks that this paper points out).

> simply transition to proof

As opposed to Proof-of-Work, Proof-of-Stake is not as simple as it sounds. Any implementation faces a myriad of design challenges and potential attacks. Things like "nothing-at-stake", "costless simulation", "stake grinding", and "long-range attacks" [1]. And in the end, there is no objective truth about the state of the chain, as there is with PoW's simple longest chain rule.

There is nothing simple about a Bitcoin "transition" either, as should be evident from the endless blocksize debates, and resulting Bitcoin Cash chain splits. That was only about changing a single parameter. Now you're talking about changing the very essence of Bitcoin, with dozens if not hundreds more dimensions of choices and opportunities for disagreements.

[1] https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf

Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

#28

Post by cyphertruck »

chrisco255 wrote: post #15

Why can't Bitcoin simply transition to proof of stake after mining dries up? Once there are few or no bitcoins left to mine then PoW is a lot of ceremony for very little security gain at that point (and perhaps opens up risks that this paper points out).

There is no such thing as “Proof of stake” to replace proof of work. Proof if work is a solution where you do not have to trust anyone, as the block is won by the person who finds the right math result, essentially a lottery.

Proof if stake is either really proof of work that is less secure and obscured, or more often dimply giving the creators of the coin the power and your trust.... which reverses the entire point of the creation of bitcoin.

PoW’s purpose isn't to distribute coins (though rewarding whales is the purpose of PoS).

PoW’s purpose is to decentralize control so nobody can control and make the system trustless.

Re: On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward [pdf]

#30

Post by chrisco255 »

xiphias2 wrote: post #23
chrisco255 wrote: post #15

Why can't Bitcoin simply transition to proof of stake after mining dries up? Once there are few or no bitcoins left to mine then PoW is a lot of ceremony for very little security gain at that point (and perhaps opens up risks that this paper points out).

It's because just because you write ,,simply'', it's not a simple thing. Just as an example Ethereum was trying hard to do it for many years now without any success. But the real reason is that there is no real solid formally written and proven ,,proof of stake'' algorithm so far.

ETH2 proof of stake beacon chain shipped in December. There's tens of thousands of ETH2 validators live today. Proof of work is still in place for base chain, so ETH is a hybrid currently. But they'll be off proof of work within a year to year and a half. For blockchains as big and old as Bitcoin and Ethereum I understand migrating to a new consensus algorithm is no easy task and comes with risks. But it is doable. And they could even prove it out on one of the many BTC forks or dupes such as BCH or Doge or Litecoin if need be. My question isn't about the technical feasibility, but I'm more interested in the game theory mechanics. The arguments against proof of stake from that point of view seem to dry up as mining rewards dry up, no?
Post reply on HN