fbpx
Connect with us

Bit Coin

Inside the blockchain developer’s mind: Proof-of-burn blockchain consensus

Published

on

Inside the blockchain developer’s mind: Proof-of-burn blockchain consensus

Cointelegraph is following the development of an entirely new blockchain from inception to mainnet and beyond through its series, Inside the Blockchain Developer’s Mind. In previous parts, Andrew Levine of Koinos Group discussed some of the challenges the team has faced since identifying the key issues they intend to solve, and outlined three of the “crises” that are holding back blockchain adoption: upgradeability, scalability and governance. This series is focused on the consensus algorithm: Part one is about proof-of-work, part two is about proof-of-stake and part three is about proof-of-burn. 

In the first article in the series, I explored proof-of-work (PoW) — the OG consensus algorithm — and explained how it works to bootstrap decentralization but also why it is inefficient. In the second article, I explored proof-of-stake (PoS) and how it is good for lowering the operating costs of a decentralized network relative to proof-of-work, but also why it further entrenches miners, requires complex and ethically questionable slashing conditions and fails to prevent “exchange attacks.”

In this article, I will explain the third consensus algorithm that was proposed about a year after proof-of-stake but, for reasons that should become clear, has never actually been implemented as a consensus algorithm on a general purpose blockchain. At least, not until now.

Proof-of-work

As I explained in the first article, from a game-theoretical perspective blockchains are a game in which players compete to validate transactions by grouping them into blocks that match the blocks of transactions being created by other players. Bitcoin (BTC) works by assigning more weight to blocks produced by people who have probably sacrificed more capital which they “prove” through “work.”

Since these people have already spent their money to acquire hardware and run it to produce blocks, their punishment is easy because they’ve already been punished. Proof-of-stake, however, operates in a fundamentally different way that has important game-theoretical consequences.

Proof-of-stake

Instead of forcing block producers to sacrifice capital to acquire and run hardware in order to gain the ability to earn block rewards, in proof-of-stake, the token holders need only sacrifice the liquidity of their capital in order to earn block rewards. The problem is it decreases network security because the attacker need only acquire 51% of the base currency of the platform and stake it to take control of the network.

To thwart this attack, PoS systems that must implement complicated systems designed to “slash” block rewards from user accounts, which adds to the computational overhead of the network, raises legitimate ethical concerns and only work if the attacker fails to acquire 51% of the token supply. Implementing these slashing conditions is by no means trivial, which is why so many proof-of-stake projects like Solana have, by their own admission, launched with centralized solutions in place, and why so many other projects like Ethereum 2.0 (Eth2) are taking so long to implement PoS. The typical solution is to give a foundation a large enough stake so that it alone has the power to determine who is a malicious actor and slash their rewards.

This is especially problematic in a world with centralized exchanges that feature custodial staking which means it can find itself in control of over 51% of a given token supply without having incurred any risk, making the cost of an attack deminimus. In fact, this has already happened in recent history on one of the most used blockchains in the world, at one time valued at nearly $2 billion: Steem.

Related: Proof-of-stake vs. proof-of-work: Differences explained

Holy Grail consensus

As I said at the end of my last article, what we will be discussing in this article is the hypothetical question of whether there is a “best-of-both-worlds” solution that delivers the decentralization and security of proof-of-work with the efficiency of proof-of-stake. Today, we are excited to announce the release of our white paper on proof-of-burn. In that white paper, we argue that proof-of-burn is exactly that best of both worlds solution.

Iain Stewart proposed proof-of-burn in 2012 — a year after proof-of-stake — as a thought experiment designed to contrast the differences between proof-of-work and proof-of-stake. We believe that he unwittingly discovered the “holy grail” of consensus algorithms that got lost in the sands of time due largely to historical accidents. As Iain Stewart noted:

“I thought it would be interesting to invent a task that is absolutely, nakedly, unambiguously an example of the contrast between the two viewpoints. And yes, there is one: burning the currency!”

The exchange attack

As the former core development team behind the Steem blockchain, we have intimate experience with exchange attacks. This is why mitigating this attack vector was of the utmost importance and inspired blockchain architect Steve Gerbino to explore alternative consensus algorithms in search of a solution that would still give us the performance and efficiency necessary for a high performance world computer, all while mitigating this important attack vector.

Proof-of-burn as a consensus algorithm is remarkably simple and its unique value is easy to understand. Like proof-of-work, it requires that the cost of attacking the network be paid “upfront.” Like proof-of-stake, no actual hardware has to be purchased and run aside from the hardware required to produce blocks. Like proof-of-work, the exchange attack is thwarted because the block producer has already lost their money, as they are simply trying to get it back by maintaining a correct ledger.

In order to mount a 51% attack, the malicious actor doesn’t just need to acquire 51% of the token supply, they need to provably dispose of it by acquiring virtual mining hardware. The only way to recoup that loss is by producing blocks on the chain that ultimately wins. It’s a remarkably simple and elegant solution to the problem. There is no need for slashing conditions because the block producer effectively slashed their own stake at the very beginning.

Proof-of-burn

Iain Stewart proposed proof-of-burn for Bitcoin a year before a general purpose blockchain was even conceived of by Vitalik Buterin. Perhaps that is why it has taken this long for people to realize that these two things work together incredibly well. General purpose blockchains place a high premium on efficiency while allowing for token economic designs without max supply caps, a requirement for proof-of-burn implementations. Part of the problem might also have been that several innovative concepts like nonfungible tokens (NFTs) and market makers, and solutions such as upgradeable smart contracts are extremely beneficial to the implementation and only emerged after the proposal.

NFT miners

Keeping track of which accounts have burned what amounts and when they were burned can be a computationally demanding task and this increased load on the network could be one of the reasons why people have avoided this implementation.

Fortunately, nonfungible tokens provide us with a powerful primitive which the system can use to efficiently keep track of all of this information for the purpose of distributing block rewards to valid block producers. The end result is an NFT that effectively functions as a virtual miner, but also one that is infinitely and precisely customizable.

Blockchain developers can precisely regulate the accessibility of their platforms based on how they price their miner NFTs. Pricing the miners high would be like requiring the purchasing of ASICs (miner machines) in order to participate in block production. Pricing the miners low would be like allowing anyone to mine on commodity hardware. But, the best part is that no actual hardware is required either way.

Since Koinos is all about accessibility, miner NFTs will likely have a low price, which is effectively like having the ultimate GPU and ASIC resistant algorithm possible. But, this begs the question: “What if you pick the wrong number?” This highlights the importance of modular upgradeability. On Koinos, all business logic is implemented as smart contract modules which are individually upgradeable without a hard fork. This means that if, for example, the price of KOIN were to explode to the degree that the fixed cost of miners was no longer sufficiently accessible, governance could simply vote to lower that cost and the number would be updated the moment there was a consensus.

Centralization resistance

Fixing the cost of miner NFTs is like building the most GPU- and ASIC-resistant algorithm possible because no one can gain an advantage by acquiring specialized hardware. Better yet, it makes the miner NFTs more uniform and therefore easier to sell (more fungible) on a decentralized exchange, meaning that block producers are taking on less risk because they can always liquidate their miners.

The power of proof-of-burn ultimately stems from the fact that we are internalizing the mining hardware to the system. It is virtual hardware, which means that it is infinitely customizable by the system designers to maximize the performance of the network. One consequence of this is that the system can be designed to ensure that the miner will earn back their burn plus some additional tokens — a guarantee that cannot be made by proof-of-work systems.

This customizability also allows us to mitigate 51% attacks by designing the system so that as the demand for miners increases, the payback period gets extended.

Now, imagine that someone (like an exchange) wants to take over block production. First, they would need to burn more tokens than everyone else combined. Even then, they will have gotten nothing for it. They will need to begin producing blocks on the winning chain to begin to earn back their rewards. During that time, other network participants would be able to see what is happening and respond accordingly. If they feel that the actor is attempting to take control of governance, they can simply purchase more miners, pushing back the payback window for the malicious actor until they “get in line.”

Token economics

Proof-of-burn also has interesting economic properties that separate it from both PoW and PoS. For example, if you were to fix the rate of new token creation (aka “inflation”), then, at a certain point, if too many people were to participate in block production, then the token economy would turn deflationary because rewards would be getting pushed back faster than new tokens were being created. This could provide performance benefits to the network, if necessary.

Many people producing blocks can negatively impact latency. This deflationary component would serve to dynamically disincentivize excessive block production, while also providing the ecosystem with an important economic lever, or deflation.

It was my goal with this series to give the reader an insanely deep understanding of the topic of consensus algorithms in a way that was still accessible and, hopefully, interesting. We’ve covered the historical arc of the major consensus algorithms and what I think is the next evolution: proof-of-burn. I hope that you are now equipped to evaluate different consensus implementations for yourself and come to your own conclusions about what is innovating and what is not.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Andrew Levine is the CEO of Koinos Group, a team of industry veterans accelerating decentralization through accessible blockchain technology. Their foundational product is Koinos, a fee-less and infinitely upgradeable blockchain with universal language support.

Go to Source

Bit Coin

GamingShiba Becomes CoinMarketCap’s Most Trending Token

Published

on

GamingShiba Becomes CoinMarketCap’s Most Trending Token

Streaming, NFT, and metaverse project GamingShiba (GAMINGSHIBA) overtook bitcoin on Wednesday to secure CoinMarketCap’s most trending token. 

The meme coin’s top trending status comes in the same week that Shiba Inu (SHIB) announced its own metaverse project, creating a potential point of confusion for investors seeking to FOMO in. Despite strong similarities in appearance and name, GamingShiba has no relation to Shiba Inu.

GamingShiba is a microcap meme coin, which according to their website holds aspirations to create, ‘a binding bridge between Gamers, Streaming platforms, NFTs and Metaverse’. In a request for further information, GamingShiba says they will “only reveal how they will create this bridge once the project has reached 100,000 holders.”

A tweet on Wednesday declared that the project currently has over 45,000+ unique addresses so investors may have a little time to wait for further information. 

GamingShiba topped the CoinMarketCap trending charts on Wednesday (Source)

The streaming/gaming/NFT/Metaverse project also describes itself as ‘your virtual dog’ and offers the following food for thought on its homepage:

“The modern technology and contemporary ambient that the internet created can not be imagined to function as a whole without cryptocurrency. The impact that the cryptocurrency has on a global scale is astronomical in the sense of being the generator of almost every development and especially the latest one.”

Comparing Shiba Inu and GamingShiba


This seems very familiar

Besides strong similarities in both appearance and name, the development of Shiba Inu’s own metaverse has created fresh point of overlap between the two Shiba-themed projects.

On Monday Shiba Inu teased the launch of the Shiberse in 2022, which the company hails as ‘An immersive experience for our ecosystem’. The Shiba Inu team promises further details at a later date.

In December of 2021 it was revealed that Shiba Inu has a multiplayer collectible card game in the works with development outsourced to the Australian gaming company PlaySide Studios. The final game is expected to be delivered in Q1 2023. 

What do you think about this subject? Write to us and tell us!

Disclaimer

All the information contained on our website is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. Any action the reader takes upon the information found on our website is strictly at their own risk.

Go to Source

Continue Reading

Bit Coin

Gold, Stocks, and Bitcoin: Weekly Overview — January 27

Published

on

Gold, Stocks, and Bitcoin: Weekly Overview — January 27

This week’s overview of price movements for Bitcoin (BTC), gold, and our stock pick Google-parent Alphabet Inc.

BTC

The price of Bitcoin (BTC) in January has gone from bad to worse. Already having dropped coming into the new year, BTC was trading around $44,000 on January 13.

Over the next few days it traded down to $43,000 before reaching $42,000 by January 20. However, after a brief spike, BTC proceeded to plummet into the following days, hitting as low as $34,000 on January 22, and $33,000 on January 24. Buying pressure then returned pushing it back up to $37,000, and as high as $38,000 by January 26.

It is currently trading below $37,000.

According to Caxton market intelligence head Michael Brown, Bitcoin’s recent decline reflects the “institutionalization” of crypto assets, in the sense that they are increasingly traded like other risky assets.

“Unsurprisingly, given that the ‘easy money’ party is now coming to an end, it is the most risky assets — crypto – that are bearing the brunt of the market’s ire,” he said. “With the Fed likely to ramp up the hawkish commentary in upcoming remarks, further downside looks likely.”

GOLD

While gold had a good past week, it has since dropped below last week’s lows. On January 13, the price of gold was roughly $1,824. Over the next few days it traded down to $1,812 by January 19, when it suddenly spiked up to $1,840. Hitting $1,848 on January 20, gold traded down a bit before pushing back up to $1,852 by January 25.

However, by the next day, the price of gold plummeted and is now trading around $1,796.

Gold prices extended losses to a more than one-week low, while the U.S. dollar and Treasury yields rallied, following U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell signaling an interest rate hike in March. That sent U.S. Benchmark 10-year yields close to one-week highs while the dollar rose to its strongest in over a month.

“The reaction was normal in the sense that Chairman Powell stressed the strength of the economy and the determination to fight inflation,” said Commerzbank commodities analyst Carsten Fritsch.

GOOG

Alphabet has had a pretty dismal start to the new year. Starting out 2022 at around $2,900, Alphabet started falling by January 5 and reached roughly $2,740 by January 7. After gapping down the next trading day GOOG proceeded to push up the next two days, eventually gapping up to $2,850 by January 12. That momentum had reversed the next day, with GOOG gapping down to $2,740 by January 18, then continuing falling, gapping down again to $2,550 by January 24.

Since then however, GOOG has recovered a bit, and is currently trading around $2,640.

Earlier this week, YouTube announced it was considering adding non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to its features for creators this year, according to a letter from the CEO. The letter marks the first time ​​YouTube’s owner, Alphabet Inc.’s Google, has announced integration with the cryptocurrency collectibles.

“We’re always focused on expanding the YouTube ecosystem to help creators capitalize on emerging technologies, including things like NFTs, while continuing to strengthen and enhance the experiences creators and fans have on YouTube,” Chief Executive Officer Susan Wojcicki wrote in her annual letter to creators.

What do you think about this subject? Write to us and tell us

Disclaimer

All the information contained on our website is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. Any action the reader takes upon the information found on our website is strictly at their own risk.

Go to Source

Continue Reading

Bit Coin

House members urge US Treasury Secretary to clarify definition of broker in infrastructure law

Published

on

House members urge US Treasury Secretary to clarify definition of broker in infrastructure law

“We must ensure requirements imposed on the digital asset ecosystem are both crafted and implemented in such a way to ensure the United States remains at the forefront of financial innovation,” said the letter to Janet Yellen.

155 Total views

38 Total shares

House members urge US Treasury Secretary to clarify definition of broker in infrastructure law

A bipartisan group of members from the U.S. House of Representatives called on Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to clarify the language in the infrastructure bill signed into law in November around the definition of “broker.”

In a Wednesday letter, House Financial Services Committee ranking member Patrick McHenry and ten other representatives urged Yellen to reference the Keep Innovation in America Act to “ensure that any future guidance” in the November infrastructure bill would provide “the necessary clarity to the digital asset ecosystem.” In addition to the reporting requirements, the lawmakers said that the Treasury Department should narrow the scope of the information a broker can capture, as it would risk “the creation of an unlevel playing field for transactions in digital assets and those required to provide them.”

— Financial Services GOP (@FinancialCmte) January 27, 2022

According to the House members, the current wording of the law would potentially allow the Treasury to interpret which companies and individuals in the crypto space qualify as a “broker,” creating a burden of reporting information to the government they may not necessarily have. This would seemingly require miners, software developers, transaction validators and node operators to report most digital asset transactions worth more than $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service.

“As nascent financial technologies develop, we must ensure requirements imposed on the digital asset ecosystem are both crafted and implemented in such a way to ensure the United States remains at the forefront of financial innovation,” said the letter to Yellen. “We believe consistent information reporting on digital asset transactions is necessary. However, it should not prevent these technologies and the ecosystem from continuing to flourish due to unclear regulations that only create uncertainty.”

Related: US Congressman calls for ‘broad, bipartisan consensus’ on important issues of digital asset policy

The appeal to the U.S. Treasury Secretary mirrors that of an December letter from six senators claiming the infrastructure law contains an “overly-broad interpretation” of what a broker is and requesting Yellen provide guidance to correct the perceived error. Senators Rob Portman, Cynthia Lummis, Mike Crapo, Pat Toomey, Mark Warner and Kyrsten Sinema urged Yellen to provide a set of rules clarifying the wording “in an expeditious manner.” Lummis and Senator Ron Wyden also attempted to pass legislation that would have changed the tax reporting requirements to “not apply to individuals developing blockchain technology and wallets” on Nov. 15 when the bill was signed into law by President Biden.

To date, none of the proposed measures clarifying the wording in the law have gotten enough support to enact change. Many lawmakers and crypto advocacy groups have expressed concerns that if the law is implemented as is, it could threaten the United States’ position as a nation encouraging the development of innovative technology.

“Our innovators and entrepreneurs can’t wait,” said McHenry. “Secretary Yellen must provide much-needed clarity so this nascent industry can flourish here in the U.S.”

Go to Source

Continue Reading
Home | Latest News | Cryptocurrency | Bit Coin | Inside the blockchain developer’s mind: Proof-of-burn blockchain consensus
a

Market

Trending