diff options
| author | Anton Ragin <anton@etc-group.com> | 2021-05-17 14:53:24 +0100 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2021-05-17 13:53:48 +0000 |
| commit | c7b81bd1fe7d27ba1c38363af302a2ba35668cd6 (patch) | |
| tree | 6834ef61eb6ab7ac70170857f8b7b102a70d1a0c | |
| parent | e67bbbabe3b4ed183ad47535ced01a27758f79f5 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-c7b81bd1fe7d27ba1c38363af302a2ba35668cd6.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-c7b81bd1fe7d27ba1c38363af302a2ba35668cd6.zip | |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Force to do nothing for first 9 minutes to save 90% of mining energy
| -rw-r--r-- | 1a/0f6ee8f31bd15f98b426158b0de6cc0d31223a | 306 |
1 files changed, 306 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/1a/0f6ee8f31bd15f98b426158b0de6cc0d31223a b/1a/0f6ee8f31bd15f98b426158b0de6cc0d31223a new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d72eae47a --- /dev/null +++ b/1a/0f6ee8f31bd15f98b426158b0de6cc0d31223a @@ -0,0 +1,306 @@ +Return-Path: <anton@etcm.ltd> +Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6093C0001 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 13:53:48 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DE360A59 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 13:53:48 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: 0.95 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, + DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, + HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, + SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no +Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); + dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=etc-group.com +Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id rV2qkhddk360 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 13:53:44 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com + [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) + by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8802860A4C + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 13:53:44 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id + y184-20020a1ce1c10000b02901769b409001so2264429wmg.3 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 06:53:44 -0700 (PDT) +DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=etc-group.com; s=google; + h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; + bh=L/KF+A1sWYeDcpwcTx1AMXv14LsvFdWzHKQwsGgdJfk=; + b=Hp9QLPHVX5NLROjIzNjlWm/psM7mdsRvqhSyHwnbodhGYFYVyxG7aXnV3eMQjMPMIZ + vhZesvP4L3ZcXelG8HQGZcp0hYNuhVQfiIoJG56dPcRrPhNuQXWtzrOvlQFjm9El2ETf + NCsVqdCZN/DyopTB7m2hjAPWm8a6eR5g1FqeKLuqMKD2fDc1byUbFx7PpO1c+SbdMZ8k + hpJkk/LYOIfkFz6DcXsYXPBdLpGvNaFDEK58x3fKWfcnu7m0OB7LTjo53oKXhQB1nHd8 + MeK1wX0RJTsSA7mCblFk8HBml6nkYoV1E4yIkVwE48CxuIolxLzcyMe+0FOSOtCKtS4o + yqpQ== +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20161025; + h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date + :message-id:subject:to; + bh=L/KF+A1sWYeDcpwcTx1AMXv14LsvFdWzHKQwsGgdJfk=; + b=gmAeok2jpVdoOoo4+QOr36aCUBK/nzs9efH942Uhfuf52LskHaNAOG92xTJM94UIgm + /87jlv03AWxis3EuTvaE/ChnPuooEHJ7e/diChaRIVrohR+2+TGJhXvkKA+Djh7cGWSS + B5LB50lBqOHasbtfluHoGv0a4LNGoFBeL8XcGLBCigEX2VTCVu3Dpc/B79eiMo1T4ZiE + U4z8OkJOI5cN6LxS3DN9oWR2YFRmnKgKlGVsHo+7ErUl2/Pxmza60oBLaw13cRoxPbou + mM9hQ4bL5S2sBFKCT6p6/Le7mITchQkpLj0FnQZlK6FeQWOXLETuxpzsCpstLt8aDc06 + Tw+A== +X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531R3pI0NzBIzqVuegyoqlq/9sPXe55Ccv0MkUaAMZoc67q8UmKk + dyqNxfJ/SzoC/9r2SinYD8kwCa0WnNrpl+IhqI5osQ== +X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyCMyAtjCzgSpXQxa/1FlqBkSzJUPagc2+G87k18P5RVgYgsoi49kBpHqzkpKy3Kr360RFSI+rO4r2ZGcP+9jY= +X-Received: by 2002:a1c:730b:: with SMTP id d11mr87913wmb.20.1621259622516; + Mon, 17 May 2021 06:53:42 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <jawWY4NALDmoikH8U4l9sTFxF54GPGQBFMBfgcI2NhVOmu3kRnsDkhTZ48wQCngfaRn0q6VY0bVlFdBPz9g1PSUoHTN0jmAv97_TPNlcY_I=@protonmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <jawWY4NALDmoikH8U4l9sTFxF54GPGQBFMBfgcI2NhVOmu3kRnsDkhTZ48wQCngfaRn0q6VY0bVlFdBPz9g1PSUoHTN0jmAv97_TPNlcY_I=@protonmail.com> +From: Anton Ragin <anton@etc-group.com> +Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 14:53:24 +0100 +Message-ID: <CAPyV_jAOwQN+Xx4+b7-Oa5jz1C6uZMrEFqg8J=AUm2=P3UCh6Q@mail.gmail.com> +To: befreeandopen <befreeandopen@protonmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e39ad005c286ebf9" +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 May 2021 14:11:23 +0000 +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Force to do nothing for first 9 minutes + to save 90% of mining energy +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 +Precedence: list +List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, + <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 13:53:48 -0000 + +--000000000000e39ad005c286ebf9 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" + +Hello, list + +>Hello centralisation. Might as well just have someone sign miner keys, and +get +>rid of PoW entirely... +>No, it is not centralization - + +No, it is not centralization, as: + +(a) different miners could use different standards / certifications for +'green' status, there are many already; + + +>> That does not refute the claim at all. Just because you can choose from +multiple centralized authorities, which are well known and can collude, it +does not mean it is decentralized by any reasonable definition of the term. + +(b) it does not affect stability of the network in a material way, rather +creates small (12.5% of revenue max) incentive to move to green sources of +energy (or buy carbon credits) and get certified - miners who would choose +to run dirty energy will still be able to do so. +and + + +>> Who is to issue these credits? A centralized entity I guess ... There is +no place for such in Bitcoin. + +If I am to concede on the point that *voluntarily* green-status miner +certification is 'centralization', can you please explain *in detail* why +aren't 'bitcoin.org' and GitHub repo similar examples of 'centralization'? +You make a correct point that bitcoin.org and the GitHub repo are not +'official' things of Bitcoin network, however nowhere in my proposals on +green miner certification I was suggesting to introduce an 'official' +certificate for such a thing. May be I mis-formulated my ideas, in that +case I apologize: + +The only thing which I suggested was to introduce an option to have some +transactions encrypted in the mempool to allow Bitcoin users some control +over who mines their transaction - full stop. Users could then decide how +to use this functionality themselves, and such functionality could have +uses way beyond 'green miners' - for example, some users might prefer to +send their transactions *directly to trusted miners* to prevent certain +quantum computer enabled attacks (e.g. when there is a window of +opportunity to steal coins if you have fast QC when you spend even from +p2phk address). Another example - if users are given some flexibility whom +to send the transactions, they might actually want to steer them away from +huge mining pools such as Antpool to support small independent miners, smth +of this sort - which actually would boost diversity in the network. + +You may or may not agree that climate change is real, or may or may not +agree that Bitcoin energy consumption is a problem - I respectfully submit +it is not the right forum to find truth on these topics. We are discussing +ideas which *might *make Bitcoin a better solution for users who care about +certain things, *without *making it worse for somebody else (like you, for +example - who don't like centralization in any form). + +>> (c) nothing is being proposed beyond what is already possible - Antpool +can go green today, and solicit users to send them signed transactions +directly instead of adding them to a public mempool, under the pretext that +it would make the transfer 'greener'. + +>> And if there was an economic advantage in doing so, miners would quite +likely already implement that. Yet, somehow, they are not doing that. + +Arguments of the sort 'if something could be done or should have been done +- it would be done already' are flawed, in my opinion, as following the +same logic nothing (including Bitcoin itself) should have been done ever. +As a matter of fact, we are working on a green miner initiative with +certain miners, having a call with Hut8 in 20 minutes myself - and I know +that we are not the only ones. Green crypto initiatives are actually +widespread, and the solutions will be popping up soon. + +>> Please stop with the carbon credit nonsense. There is likely no such +thing to exist on a free market and no one is interested in these state +regulations. + +Please read this Wikipedia Article: +https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset + +"There are two types of markets for carbon offsets, compliance and +*voluntary*" [emphasis added]. + +Voluntary carbon offset markets are actually growing really fast. + +>> Just because a big company is controlled by people who do not understand +Bitcoin, it does not make the issue valid. There are no such environmental +concerns once you understand how Bitcoin and free market work. Don't help +to spread the FUD. + +I respectfully submit that people who know how to launch rockets to the sky +and beam high-speed internet from the satellites to every place on earth +are at least capable of understanding how Bitcoin works. There is even an +english expression which reads 'it is not a rocket science' which I think +fits especially nicely in this particular case :) + +>> Once people stop spreading FUD, the price will likely skyrocket. Start +with yourself please. + +I guess you misinterpret my intentions, I think it doesn't matter what +Bitcoin price is - my personal interest is the widest possible adoption of +blockchain as a peer-to-peer way to transfer value between consenting +individuals free from government control or intervention. Environmental +concerns are real and at least some parts of the community are clearly +interested to at least discuss this matter (e.g. I am not the one who +started this thread). + +Please don't be dismissive, it is an open forum and everybody is entitled +to his/her/its own opinion. + +--000000000000e39ad005c286ebf9 +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hello, list</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type= +=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>>Hello centralisation. Might as wel= +l just have someone sign miner keys, and get<br></div><div>>rid of PoW e= +ntirely...<br></div></div><div>>No, it is not centralization -=C2=A0<br>= +</div><div><br></div><div>No, it is not centralization, as:<br></div><div><= +br></div><div>(a) different miners could use different standards / certific= +ations for 'green' status, there are many already;<br></div></div><= +/blockquote><div><br></div><div>>> That does not refute the claim at = +all. Just because you can choose from multiple centralized authorities, whi= +ch are well known and can collude, it does not mean it is decentralized by = +any reasonable definition of the term.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote= + type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>(b) + it does not affect stability of the network in a material way, rather +creates small (12.5% of revenue max) incentive to move to green sources +of energy (or buy carbon credits) and get certified - miners who would +choose to run dirty energy will still be able to do so.<br></div><div><div>= +and<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>>> Who is t= +o issue these credits? A centralized entity I guess ... There is no place f= +or such in Bitcoin.</div></div><div><br></div><div>If I am to concede on th= +e point that <u>voluntarily</u> green-status miner certification is 'ce= +ntralization', can you please explain <i>in detail</i>=C2=A0why aren= +9;t '<a href=3D"http://bitcoin.org">bitcoin.org</a>' and GitHub rep= +o similar examples of 'centralization'? You make a correct point th= +at <a href=3D"http://bitcoin.org">bitcoin.org</a> and the GitHub repo are n= +ot 'official' things of Bitcoin network, however nowhere in my prop= +osals on green miner certification I was suggesting to introduce an 'of= +ficial' certificate for such a thing. May be I mis-formulated my ideas,= + in that case I apologize:</div><div><br></div><div>The only thing which I = +suggested was to introduce an option to have some transactions encrypted in= + the mempool to allow Bitcoin users some control over who mines their trans= +action - full stop. Users could then decide how to use this functionality t= +hemselves, and such functionality could have uses way beyond 'green min= +ers' - for example, some users might prefer to send their transactions = +<i>directly to trusted miners</i> to prevent certain quantum computer enabl= +ed attacks (e.g. when there is a window of opportunity to steal coins if yo= +u have fast QC when you spend even from p2phk address). Another example - i= +f users are given some flexibility whom to send the transactions, they migh= +t actually want to steer them away from huge mining pools such as Antpool t= +o support small independent miners, smth of this sort - which actually woul= +d boost diversity in the network.</div><div><br></div><div>You may or may n= +ot agree that climate change is real, or may or may not agree that Bitcoin = +energy consumption is a problem - I respectfully submit it is not the right= + forum to find truth on these topics. We are discussing ideas which <i>migh= +t </i>make Bitcoin a better solution for users who care about certain thing= +s, <i>without </i>making it worse for somebody else (like you, for example = +- who don't like centralization in any form).</div><div><br></div><div>= +>> (c) + nothing is being proposed beyond=C2=A0what is already possible - Antpool c= +an + go green today, and solicit users to send them signed transactions +directly instead of adding them to a public mempool, under the pretext +that it would make the transfer 'greener'.</div><div><br></div><div= +>>> And if there was an economic advantage in doing so, miners would = +quite likely already implement that. Yet, somehow, they are not doing that.= +</div><div><br></div><div>Arguments of the sort 'if something could be = +done or should have been done - it would be done already' are flawed, i= +n my opinion, as following the same logic nothing (including Bitcoin itself= +) should have been done ever. As a matter of fact, we are working on a gree= +n miner initiative with certain miners, having a call with Hut8 in 20 minut= +es=C2=A0myself - and I know that we are not the only ones. Green crypto ini= +tiatives are actually widespread, and the solutions will be popping up soon= +.</div><div><br></div><div>>>=C2=A0 + +Please stop with the carbon credit nonsense. There is likely no such thing = +to exist on a free market and no one is interested in these state regulatio= +ns. + +</div><div><br></div><div>Please read this Wikipedia Article:=C2=A0<a href= +=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset">https://en.wikipedia.org/w= +iki/Carbon_offset</a></div><div><br></div><div>"<span style=3D"color:r= +gb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">There are two types of = +markets for carbon offsets, compliance and <u>voluntary</u>" [emphasis= + added].</span></div><div><span style=3D"color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sa= +ns-serif;font-size:14px"><br></span></div><div><span style=3D"color:rgb(32,= +33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Voluntary carbon offset marke= +ts are actually growing really fast.</span></div><div><span style=3D"color:= +rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br></span></div><div>= +<span style=3D"color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">&= +gt;>=C2=A0</span>Just because a big company is controlled by people who = +do not understand Bitcoin, it does not make the issue valid. There are no s= +uch environmental concerns once you understand how Bitcoin and free market = +work. Don't help to spread the FUD.</div><div><br></div><div>I respectf= +ully submit that people who know how to launch rockets to the sky and beam = +high-speed internet from the satellites to every place on earth are at leas= +t capable of understanding how Bitcoin works. There is even an english expr= +ession which reads 'it is not a rocket science' which I think fits = +especially nicely in this particular case :)</div><div><br></div><div>>&= +gt;=C2=A0 + +Once people stop spreading FUD, the price will likely skyrocket. Start with= + yourself please. + +</div><div><br></div><div>I guess you misinterpret my intentions, I think i= +t doesn't matter what Bitcoin price is - my personal interest is the wi= +dest possible adoption of blockchain as a peer-to-peer way to transfer valu= +e between consenting individuals free from government control or interventi= +on. Environmental concerns are real and at least some parts of the communit= +y are clearly interested to at least discuss this matter (e.g. I am not the= + one who started this thread).</div><div><br></div><div>Please don't be= + dismissive, it is an open forum and everybody is entitled to his/her/its o= +wn opinion.=C2=A0</div></div></div> + +--000000000000e39ad005c286ebf9-- + |