I think you need to hard deprecate the PoW for this to work, otherwise all old miners are like "toxic waste".
Imagine one miner turns on a S9 and then ramps up difficulty for everyone else. On Fri, Apr 16, 2021, 2:08 PM Erik Aronesty via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Not sure of the best place to workshop ideas, so please take this with > a grain of salt. > > Starting with 3 assumptions: > > - assume that there exists a proof-of-burn that, for Bitcoin's > purposes, accurately-enough models the investment in and development > of ASICs to maintain miner incentive. > - assume the resulting timing problem "how much burn is enough to keep > blocks 10 minutes apart and what does that even mean" is also... > perfectly solvable > - assume "everyone unanimously loves this idea" > > The transition *could* look like this: > > - validating nodes begin to require proof-of-burn, in addition to > proof-of-work (soft fork) > - the extra expense makes it more expensive for miners, so POW slowly > drops > - on a predefined schedule, POB required is increased to 100% of the > "required work" to mine > > Given all of that, am I correct in thinking that a hard fork would not > be necessary? > > IE: We could transition to another "required proof" - such as a > quantum POW or a POB (above) or something else .... in a back-compat > way (existing nodes not aware of the rules would continue to > validate). > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
