summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDevrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net>2021-05-18 02:18:24 -0700
committerbitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org>2021-05-18 09:18:40 +0000
commitcf7416ef4d2236af9396e8ef7492f4d6248ca4b9 (patch)
tree9d02c0fb4f39c308eea075059c5072bcff7fd4b2
parentc9e2aaa7a788d0e79694f7bf96cb15668a6b53c4 (diff)
downloadpi-bitcoindev-cf7416ef4d2236af9396e8ef7492f4d6248ca4b9.tar.gz
pi-bitcoindev-cf7416ef4d2236af9396e8ef7492f4d6248ca4b9.zip
Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Low Energy Bitcoin PoW
-rw-r--r--d1/b88a848d76810aa958668504ce461db2cd48c6153
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&#39;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&amp;D, real-estate, construct=
+ion, production) may have less externalities, and if that&#39;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--
+