diff options
author | Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net> | 2021-05-18 02:18:24 -0700 |
---|---|---|
committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2021-05-18 09:18:40 +0000 |
commit | cf7416ef4d2236af9396e8ef7492f4d6248ca4b9 (patch) | |
tree | 9d02c0fb4f39c308eea075059c5072bcff7fd4b2 | |
parent | c9e2aaa7a788d0e79694f7bf96cb15668a6b53c4 (diff) | |
download | pi-bitcoindev-cf7416ef4d2236af9396e8ef7492f4d6248ca4b9.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-cf7416ef4d2236af9396e8ef7492f4d6248ca4b9.zip |
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Low Energy Bitcoin PoW
-rw-r--r-- | d1/b88a848d76810aa958668504ce461db2cd48c6 | 153 |
1 files changed, 153 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/d1/b88a848d76810aa958668504ce461db2cd48c6 b/d1/b88a848d76810aa958668504ce461db2cd48c6 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ab15599a3 --- /dev/null +++ b/d1/b88a848d76810aa958668504ce461db2cd48c6 @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +Return-Path: <miron@hyper.to> +Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) + by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491DDC0001 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:40 +0000 (UTC) +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5E6405BD + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:40 +0000 (UTC) +X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.649 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, + HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, + RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] + autolearn=no autolearn_force=no +Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id Qir0A9kZRmGP + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:38 +0000 (UTC) +X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 +Received: from mail-ej1-f45.google.com (mail-ej1-f45.google.com + [209.85.218.45]) + by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81726405B9 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:38 +0000 (UTC) +Received: by mail-ej1-f45.google.com with SMTP id lg14so13430056ejb.9 + for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; + Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:37 -0700 (PDT) +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=yQIb0oUwrd5dlBKz35dU2GDIUwrIUBtfFUV6YIH9SZs=; + b=Cu1rzLBi0qiMH1/obwzW860bN/XNY4cyIprJhiUgysrVHzHCD8G50eD+2J9ekeLSQS + kAFhfeHnFLRgLnLynur6DJESNJySsQTCB+u27ooBt4r32ghV+0n7FhfgSD02QeIDaxXT + CCloZzTjJ0jRNpVipirKUE3ev5/laJLMfQO3L8QbPuUOrmPFvXO4r2cNNDHSzp+vXhyj + /EVKEH6shImMC2P2fVULIlLClFwDf7aw2fawS6GYOhMUQkBWT2Xgit1GlqBCXhi97DL1 + 5WU4Qhcd4GDh8bAKuWW9VEOoQXFCgdmlO2icxaUZSl3Sq2yGTi9urpoRSQ047C4AgkZu + REgQ== +X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GxsBUOTI94ok2uraTmy9TH251El6cfU08HrTGh7jiXGINiDr8 + p89tIolAFwAR28AzAxcEMLyivUsLLGXFmS9KLOluqQ== +X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSk6KroHlAtfsngFVWoI3R6B1gU6GZH9ZLNsZhK2HaKw2QOXytBsWTS7MGPA0f7QsRExDFV4Sm13VC7q7psM4= +X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:ad9a:: with SMTP id + la26mr5135485ejb.122.1621329516413; + Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:36 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +References: <CAGFmrSac+Ej1a6da8GcPK1pB_kgowtQk5roaDCVsL9t1zgwEFA@mail.gmail.com> + <CALeFGL3U2yb2WVz4rwcBqO25kd0B7NcgrN4iMjDyackrTTegpw@mail.gmail.com> + <ZFVpoVGcwTTpDDlAXLn8cCwic0l40b3DmE_UoKIv4IvmFDDX9W2F1sRHYwido1X7OK0fX1QAx5J8I5DokM4pcIKziNAgAwc6emrHulfbRE8=@protonmail.com> +In-Reply-To: <ZFVpoVGcwTTpDDlAXLn8cCwic0l40b3DmE_UoKIv4IvmFDDX9W2F1sRHYwido1X7OK0fX1QAx5J8I5DokM4pcIKziNAgAwc6emrHulfbRE8=@protonmail.com> +From: Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net> +Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:24 -0700 +Message-ID: <CAB0O3SUm0JJ7rdQZNuH+6AKhC3SiXSsoBAoGpLZS7YJawWBS3Q@mail.gmail.com> +To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>, + Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3d60a05c2973118" +X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:52:40 +0000 +Cc: Michael Dubrovsky <mike@powx.org> +Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Low Energy Bitcoin PoW +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: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:40 -0000 + +--000000000000e3d60a05c2973118 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" + +On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj: + +> +> When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects +> until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you +> will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway. +> + +Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalities. +The whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externalities +related to energy production. + +Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construction, +production) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, we should +be interested in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types of CAPEX. + +On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:20 PM Keagan McClelland wrote: + +First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the chip +> manufacturing process, rather than eliminating it. And it may trade some +> marginal amount of the energy consumption for the set of resources it takes +> to educate and create chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that cost +> being funneled back into more energy consumption [...] +> + +I challenge you to substantiate these assertions. Real-estate and human +cognitive work are not energy intensive and are a major factor in the +expected costs of some alternative PoWs. The expected mining effort is +such that the cost will reach the expected reward, no more, so there is +every reason to believe that energy consumption will be small compared to +the current PoW. + +Therefore, the total associated negative externalities for the alternative +PoWs may well be much lower than the externalities of energy production. +This needs detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction. + +--000000000000e3d60a05c2973118 +Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, May 17, 2021= + at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote clas= +s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid r= +gb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br> +When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects u= +ntil you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you wi= +ll realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.<br></blockqu= +ote><div><br></div><div>Let's not simplify away economic considerations= +, such as externalities.=C2=A0 The whole debate about the current PoW is ab= +out negative externalities related to energy production.<br></div><div><br>= +</div><div>Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construct= +ion, production) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, w= +e should be interested in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types o= +f CAPEX.</div><div><br></div><div>On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:20 PM Keagan Mc= +Clelland wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style= +=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding= +-left:1ex"><div>First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the= + chip manufacturing process, rather than eliminating it. And it may trade s= +ome marginal amount of the energy consumption for the set of resources it t= +akes to educate and create chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that c= +ost being funneled back into more energy consumption [...]</div></blockquot= +e><div><br></div><div>I challenge you to substantiate these assertions.=C2= +=A0 Real-estate and human cognitive work are not energy intensive and are a= + major factor in the expected costs of some alternative PoWs.=C2=A0 The exp= +ected mining effort is such that the cost will reach the expected reward, n= +o more, so there is every reason to believe that energy consumption will be= + small compared to the current PoW.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Therefore,= + the total associated negative externalities for the alternative PoWs may w= +ell be much lower than the externalities of energy production.=C2=A0 This n= +eeds detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction.<br></div><div><br></div><= +/div></div> + +--000000000000e3d60a05c2973118-- + |