diff options
author | Anton Ragin <anton@etc-group.com> | 2021-05-18 00:02:07 +0100 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2021-05-17 23:02:29 +0000 |
commit | c9e2aaa7a788d0e79694f7bf96cb15668a6b53c4 (patch) | |
tree | 96027d18ec7aef900d4e774b41695e66b92a00cf | |
parent | 38a5f64800b791e9c091998ca8a0e05959d431a8 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-c9e2aaa7a788d0e79694f7bf96cb15668a6b53c4.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-c9e2aaa7a788d0e79694f7bf96cb15668a6b53c4.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Force to do nothing for first 9 minutes to save 90% of mining energy
-rw-r--r-- | ae/f9e48f6e4d7d5614b152ae0885ad677b9f7c80 | 549 |
1 files changed, 549 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/ae/f9e48f6e4d7d5614b152ae0885ad677b9f7c80 b/ae/f9e48f6e4d7d5614b152ae0885ad677b9f7c80 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fe837fc4a --- /dev/null +++ b/ae/f9e48f6e4d7d5614b152ae0885ad677b9f7c80 @@ -0,0 +1,549 @@ +Return-Path: <anton@etcm.ltd> +Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5E99C0001 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 23:02:29 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C779840218 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 23:02:29 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.751 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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_PASS=-0.001] + autolearn=no autolearn_force=no +Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); + dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=etc-group.com +Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id 2ezb0TQ7EOpV + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 23:02:28 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com (mail-wr1-x42c.google.com + [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]) + by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BC4740206 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 23:02:27 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id j14so6325374wrq.5 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Mon, 17 May 2021 16:02:27 -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 + :cc; bh=199WZe/TRxOh+sdUvYjpyTTlmayNlFJM5InlNCRevu8=; + b=XwMzqfy+0FAvuGGPZrcf68Leepqc9mShPMdyKUT/pwW/Xtjb+yQRFswwvkPvs5GXuT + Q29K3DRN500RED0a+NyODG2NIrXAzoPz9s+oLSAF6KqfjYYE9GnzmfnRBVmky5K7Xe1q + jmli59X9+HosrMlB8OMq5xPY203wKji+cEavo3BA8L6a+qhBbQtAi4+DwJzOuZ9SOXRf + oEb0i7DWpXQW3NxFcqdyTTeK0VT1de0vaz/kbJgFIjgLWw4AUjZPqczc+PWFhK+oWvwa + 2x2IV38p381Euq/vPvOhgXx5Zp8KESaihOiDE6ZyRh7aVAR5prV5RWCUmKOW84KZQNHk + 85lA== +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:cc; + bh=199WZe/TRxOh+sdUvYjpyTTlmayNlFJM5InlNCRevu8=; + b=PyH2lI/glNDgqHaF1885mCl1Hs23IF43VhEYXf2KNkx8quV5wn9idH1KQhyuJXec3h + qFMx59QrE7kDI4+lysePAreBM+6b0JZ8Hgx74qVyre6NEPXZKqHQrsj5QeviQVaFDw1M + vXE5OIrUxp8aNL5lQ9K9BG76pX4UutdmUeoOoTRhPEn2wgxA3KRCvucjw9vxCmGF2cyZ + GW8LEF8gvCJZIISRBH3P376uNOCPYVXS09nu/rA9FtBABU0NTfdBBdtfPfHdi2BRlZJ/ + /hCobMX2f/h+8nofbka3SyEvSMMbJsTZRCE9pFgxSW+KDIzwIYWuxlcPrs4XErquP7lv + dXpg== +X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530giMjU/O8So5Z2LuIZNoqowpIdzP4RY3VA5Q8BajcQRIUDVMn8 + Gk1zyLMnKOjlV88+8gT1zcuzcjxSG9/y+w2k6ayg/Q== +X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhA6JDrp1j4tfSCbk8ao7/CxVgoiEjG2FAPophHHLY6ZsQ6tSKSdoiZ807KT0zzEffbsvtqXb1gRMXbgaW6mg= +X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4c46:: with SMTP id n6mr2494097wrt.95.1621292545794; + Mon, 17 May 2021 16:02:25 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <jawWY4NALDmoikH8U4l9sTFxF54GPGQBFMBfgcI2NhVOmu3kRnsDkhTZ48wQCngfaRn0q6VY0bVlFdBPz9g1PSUoHTN0jmAv97_TPNlcY_I=@protonmail.com> + <CAPyV_jAOwQN+Xx4+b7-Oa5jz1C6uZMrEFqg8J=AUm2=P3UCh6Q@mail.gmail.com> + <CALeFGL1=_FSDT6TjmbL9N4TkLGvm5cMf9MsfLXT2rn5m2Cea3g@mail.gmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <CALeFGL1=_FSDT6TjmbL9N4TkLGvm5cMf9MsfLXT2rn5m2Cea3g@mail.gmail.com> +From: Anton Ragin <anton@etc-group.com> +Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 00:02:07 +0100 +Message-ID: <CAPyV_jBqeTJQskKnzOwcwH0Byed8E6RLy4qLhQG-aWsH62NbTw@mail.gmail.com> +To: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000044fbe905c28e965c" +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:52:40 +0000 +Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +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 23:02:30 -0000 + +--00000000000044fbe905c28e965c +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" + +>> This is not possible for rather obvious reasons: +>> 1. transaction sizes cannot be allowed to be unbounded because this +creates denial of service attacks for the broader network +>> 2. if the valid certificate set is not unbounded, then centralization +pressure will mount on the bound between the Nth and N+1th certifier. + +>> Finally, all of this would require a rather large consensus change to +even implement. Given how contentious the proposal of a "choose your +miner/certifier" is, it is unlikely to gain the necessary support in the +form of code, review, miner signaling, or user uptake for a UASF. + +My original suggestion was to hold an unbounded number of copies of +asymmetrically-encrypted transactions in the mempool, each of them could be +decrypted with the key which is owned by a particular miner. Once one of +them get mined, all other copies are discarded (this can be done by holding +hashes of transactions in the mempool unencrypted, so once the node sees +the transaction matching the hash mined - it can discard the other copies +sharing the same hash). + +I agree that that opens the door to potential DoS attack - people can start +transmitting invalid transactions to perform a DoS attack on the network. + +However, the following adaptation of the idea might work: the transaction +is duly signed and communicated to the mempool, but have an unbonded list +of certificates of 'preferred' miners. If for within M blocks a preferred +miner manages to mine the block - fine, if within M blocks it does not +happen, transaction can be mined by any miner. Additionally, full nodes can +demand a minimum fee which is dependant on the number of attached +certificates (e.g. if attaching N certificates makes the transaction +message 2x the size of normal message, the minimum fee is twice bigger). It +appears to me, that such M-block delay + list of preferred miners which can +be arbitrary long, but user pays higher fees if it is unreasonably long, +does not raise DoS concerns as it does not materially affect the dynamics +of things how they are right now. + +>> If you truly care about only having your transactions mined by "green" +miners or whatever other qualification you are going after, then this can +likely be implemented in upper layers as you suggested. You can submit your +transaction via an overlay network directly to any miners that fit your +criteria. Since miners operate in a selfish way, it is not in their +interest to share your transaction with other miners, and the probable case +is that your transaction will only be included in a block that is signed by +your preferred authority. + +Overlay network is one of the solutions, however community-supported +functionality of giving some miners a priority as suggested above will + +>> It is, in fact, an open forum and everyone is entitled to their view, +including being dismissive of yours. + +Accepted :) + +On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 6:28 PM Keagan McClelland < +keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote: + +> In principle the idea of making your transactions not mineable except by +> miners who follow some particular practice is something that can and should +> be discussed. For instance, it could help give economic signals for future +> soft forks such that users can declare preference in a costly, sybil +> resistant way. +> +> As I understand what you are asking, you want users to be able to issue +> transactions that can only be included in blocks that are signed by miners +> whose certificates can be traced back to some set of certificates that the +> sender has "whitelisted". The trouble here is that in order for this to be +> an open system, the user would need to be able to include an unbounded +> number of optional certificates in the transaction itself, otherwise the +> rest of the network would be unable to validate whether or not the +> transaction, when included in the block fit the consensus rules or not. +> +> This is not possible for rather obvious reasons: +> 1. transaction sizes cannot be allowed to be unbounded because this +> creates denial of service attacks for the broader network +> 2. if the valid certificate set is not unbounded, then centralization +> pressure will mount on the bound between the Nth and N+1th certifier. +> +> Finally, all of this would require a rather large consensus change to even +> implement. Given how contentious the proposal of a "choose your +> miner/certifier" is, it is unlikely to gain the necessary support in the +> form of code, review, miner signaling, or user uptake for a UASF. +> +> That said, not all is lost. If you truly care about only having your +> transactions mined by "green" miners or whatever other qualification you +> are going after, then this can likely be implemented in upper layers as you +> suggested. You can submit your transaction via an overlay network directly +> to any miners that fit your criteria. Since miners operate in a selfish +> way, it is not in their interest to share your transaction with other +> miners, and the probable case is that your transaction will only be +> included in a block that is signed by your preferred authority. +> +> I should note though, that you may be waiting forever for your +> transactions to be mined and your business partners might choose not to do +> business with you in the future due to delays caused by virtue signaling to +> nocoiners. +> +> > Please don't be dismissive, it is an open forum and everybody is +> entitled to his/her/its own opinion. +> +> It is, in fact, an open forum and everyone is entitled to their view, +> including being dismissive of yours. +> +> > 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 :) +> +> No one is contesting that Elon and the rest of the technical staff at +> Tesla are *capable* of understanding Bitcoin. We are just asserting that, +> at present, they do not understand the underlying mechanics well enough to +> give consistent rationale for their choices, and because their public +> statements reveal either a deep hypocrisy, or deep ignorance in their +> understanding of Bitcoin. +> +> Keagan +> +> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 8:11 AM Anton Ragin via bitcoin-dev < +> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: +> +>> 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. +>> _______________________________________________ +>> bitcoin-dev mailing list +>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org +>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev +>> +> + +--00000000000044fbe905c28e965c +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr">>> This is not possible for rather= +=C2=A0obvious reasons:<br></div><div>>> 1. transaction sizes cannot b= +e allowed to be unbounded because this creates denial of service attacks fo= +r the broader network</div><div>>> 2. if the valid certificate set is= + not unbounded, then centralization pressure will mount on the bound betwee= +n the Nth and N+1th certifier.</div><div><br></div><div>>> Finally, a= +ll of this would require a rather large consensus change to even implement.= + Given how contentious the proposal of a "choose your miner/certifier&= +quot; is, it is unlikely to gain the necessary support in the form of code,= + review, miner signaling, or user uptake for a UASF.</div><div><br></div><d= +iv>My original suggestion was to hold an unbounded number of copies of asym= +metrically-encrypted transactions in the mempool, each of them could be dec= +rypted with the key which is owned by a particular miner. Once one of them = +get mined, all other copies are discarded (this can be done by holding hash= +es of transactions in the mempool unencrypted, so once the node sees the tr= +ansaction matching the hash mined - it can discard the other copies sharing= + the same hash).</div><div><br></div><div>I agree that that opens the door = +to potential DoS attack - people can start transmitting invalid transaction= +s to perform a DoS attack on the network.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Ho= +wever, the following adaptation of the idea might work: the transaction is = +duly signed and communicated to the mempool, but have an unbonded list of c= +ertificates of 'preferred' miners. If for within M blocks a preferr= +ed miner manages to mine the block - fine, if within M blocks it does not h= +appen, transaction can be mined by any miner. Additionally, full nodes can = +demand a minimum fee which is dependant on the number of attached certifica= +tes (e.g. if attaching N certificates makes the transaction message 2x the = +size of normal message, the minimum fee is twice bigger). It appears to me,= + that such M-block delay=C2=A0+ list of preferred miners which can be arbit= +rary long, but user pays higher fees if it is unreasonably long, does not r= +aise DoS concerns as it does not materially affect the dynamics of things h= +ow they are right now.</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr">>= +;>=C2=A0 + +If you truly care about only having your transactions mined by "green&= +quot; miners or whatever other qualification you are going after, then this= + can likely be implemented in upper layers as you suggested. You can submit= + your transaction via an overlay network directly to any miners that fit yo= +ur criteria. Since miners operate in a selfish way, it is not in their inte= +rest to share your transaction with other miners, and the probable case is = +that your transaction will only be included in a block that is signed by yo= +ur preferred authority. + +</div><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><div>Overlay network is one of the solutio= +ns, however community-supported functionality of giving some miners a prior= +ity as suggested above will=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>>>=C2=A0 + +It is, in fact, an open forum and everyone is entitled to their view, inclu= +ding being dismissive of yours. + +</div><div><br></div><div>Accepted :)</div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><= +div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 6:28 PM Keagan= + McClelland <<a href=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com">keagan.mccle= +lland@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" s= +tyle=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);pad= +ding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">In principle the idea of making your transa= +ctions not mineable except by miners who follow some particular practice is= + something that can and should be discussed. For instance, it could help gi= +ve economic signals for future soft forks such that users can declare prefe= +rence in a costly, sybil resistant way.<div><br></div><div>As I understand = +what you are asking, you want users to be able to issue transactions that c= +an only be included in blocks that are signed by miners whose certificates = +can be traced back to some set of certificates that the sender has "wh= +itelisted". The trouble here is that in order for this to be an open s= +ystem, the user would need to be able to include an unbounded number of opt= +ional certificates in the transaction itself, otherwise the rest of the net= +work would be unable to validate whether or not the transaction, when inclu= +ded in the block fit the consensus rules or not.</div><div><br></div><div>T= +his is not possible for rather=C2=A0obvious reasons:</div><div>1. transacti= +on sizes cannot be allowed to be unbounded because this creates denial of s= +ervice attacks for the broader network</div><div>2. if the valid certificat= +e set is not unbounded, then centralization pressure will mount on the boun= +d between the Nth and N+1th certifier.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, al= +l of this would require a rather large consensus change to even implement. = +Given how contentious the proposal of a "choose your miner/certifier&q= +uot; is, it is unlikely to gain the necessary support in the form of code, = +review, miner signaling, or user uptake for a UASF.</div><div><br></div><di= +v>That said, not all is lost. If you truly care about only having your tran= +sactions mined by "green" miners or whatever other qualification = +you are going after, then this can likely be implemented in upper layers as= + you suggested. You can submit your transaction via an overlay network dire= +ctly to any miners that fit your criteria. Since miners operate in a selfis= +h way, it is not in their interest to share your transaction with other min= +ers, and the probable case is that your transaction will only be included i= +n a block that is signed by your preferred authority.</div><div><br></div><= +div>I should note though, that you may be waiting forever for your transact= +ions to be mined and your business partners might choose not to do business= + with you in the future due to delays caused by virtue signaling to nocoine= +rs.</div><div><br></div><div>> Please don't be dismissive, it is an = +open forum and everybody is entitled to his/her/its own opinion.=C2=A0<br><= +/div><div><br></div><div>It is, in fact, an open forum and everyone is enti= +tled to their view, including being dismissive of yours.</div><div><br></di= +v><div>> I respectfully submit that people who know how to launch rocket= +s to the sky and beam high-speed internet from the satellites to every plac= +e on earth are at least capable of understanding how Bitcoin works. There i= +s even an english expression which reads 'it is not a rocket science= +9; which I think fits especially nicely in this particular case :)</div><di= +v><br></div><div>No one is contesting that Elon and the rest of the technic= +al staff at Tesla are *capable* of understanding Bitcoin. We are just asser= +ting that, at present, they do not understand the underlying mechanics well= + enough to give consistent=C2=A0rationale for their choices, and because th= +eir public statements reveal either a deep hypocrisy, or deep ignorance in = +their understanding of Bitcoin.</div><div><br></div><div>Keagan</div></div>= +<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon= +, May 17, 2021 at 8:11 AM Anton Ragin via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"mailto= +:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists= +.linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo= +te" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204= +);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hello, list</div><div><br></div><= +div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>>Hello centrali= +sation. Might as well just have someone sign miner keys, and get<br></div><= +div>>rid of PoW entirely...<br></div></div><div>>No, it is not centra= +lization -=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 / certifications for 'green' status, there are many alrea= +dy;<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>>> That does not = +refute the claim at all. Just because you can choose from multiple centrali= +zed authorities, which 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" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin.org</a>&#= +39; and GitHub repo similar examples of 'centralization'? You make = +a correct point that <a href=3D"http://bitcoin.org" target=3D"_blank">bitco= +in.org</a> and the GitHub repo are not 'official' things of Bitcoin= + network, however nowhere in my proposals on green miner certification I wa= +s suggesting to introduce an 'official' certificate for such a thin= +g. May be I mis-formulated my ideas, in that case I apologize:</div><div><b= +r></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 som= +e control over who mines their transaction - full stop. Users could then de= +cide how to use this functionality themselves, and such functionality could= + have uses way beyond 'green miners' - for example, some users migh= +t prefer to send their transactions <i>directly to trusted miners</i> to pr= +event 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, smt= +h of this sort - which actually would boost diversity in the network.</div>= +<div><br></div><div>You may or may not agree that climate change is real, o= +r may or may not agree that Bitcoin energy consumption is a problem - I res= +pectfully submit it is not the right forum to find truth on these topics. W= +e are discussing ideas which <i>might </i>make Bitcoin a better solution fo= +r users who care about certain things, <i>without </i>making it worse for s= +omebody 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" target=3D"_blank">https://= +en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset</a></div><div><br></div><div>"<spa= +n style=3D"color:rgb(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:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br></span></div><div><span styl= +e=3D"color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Voluntary c= +arbon offset markets are actually growing really fast.</span></div><div><sp= +an 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">>>=C2=A0</span>Just because a big company is control= +led by people who do not understand Bitcoin, it does not make the issue val= +id. There are no such environmental concerns once you understand how Bitcoi= +n and free market work. Don't help to spread the FUD.</div><div><br></d= +iv><div>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 ev= +en an english expression which reads 'it is not a rocket science' w= +hich I think fits especially nicely in this particular case :)</div><div><b= +r></div><div>>>=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> +_______________________________________________<br> +bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> +<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= +bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> +<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = +rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= +man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> +</blockquote></div> +</blockquote></div></div> + +--00000000000044fbe905c28e965c-- + |