Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B57FC000A for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1460483C5E for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AHXcdOjU6Z6Q for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb36.google.com (mail-yb1-xb36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b36]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DDC083C42 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb36.google.com with SMTP id u75so37793458ybi.10 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:23:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=TSOaz6eq9f0AV2KlF5HdXQAaqK1IwTSS1ahQI0jAwAU=; b=PqEk3DtGeOXJlZiS0VRQyDVBzzwbMiVGS8HA+m0YX2Vq58n2vy9JkqJtNPrR33rpAc oGjzkHlW/29Rz1bW9o2Oo+vS9dqKgLv5HsTqKgXZDiTKwdO4x/IwHrQCN5vw+mG7du3v nAVWJYYOxc7DFpxmPQ9A3sa24zR1FLgVmxZX3i6hQYL69Q82cu7V8qnI+cXhAAIs6FcW D4dAIDmx8VGUbcbtNJgKaz9ey2sFyVg6r5gbwyG97dReWGAoP2a0wI4xeghAgG4j/P4f MOoRpkjVbHr36RATDXuWr6ppbbcqQ2AVdm+w6C/Wu98mtcN71rnDJJj0N8uE+CNC5A7Q J67w== 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=TSOaz6eq9f0AV2KlF5HdXQAaqK1IwTSS1ahQI0jAwAU=; b=mZY07sMQi/N47L+NLo9wH1rReK1Zkz9WTg8DP0BgrMX8r6/+e/OtAUR4ATvH99+iUW Wwwh155y5Hms3qmf/zf/R+Z9NVdlVBRapHhyxo2b1bA54kqlGtbwMCuzGD5FCF8Sq0o3 daBJaUA8NH36tIDgVEZmmT0ZTjNMp7njlF/bwvl/qZKT8bjb5bttxQbPSIxjKlLyVu3L kHkTe/NTs657IMoLjoAomGo+/ltoNil985CjTR6zXny4zWaLgQeR7eubF2nf5ZsUtnEl IxlbiU3OhGqdJZ+hS2tfPzpD7zA2LnW4eSElMYl1eOCvtfmTKMq9zBklaEX5vD+2Bl/v eC5Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532HJeeIFsLNCPT1FlkvxaUB2+zeihnuteu1VdGsd+grGZxNX9Ie uAQtpFOBAJC59Zks3Que5hvap+1ZeBvdZBmkwqLVWsvQ0QU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxDeFlRXgLhJgygtoYmSahxGUKKnXNyOasHCjoaZDlaxVTINbN1osZxzm1qmg5nW9unLhVjVPd6HHiF2Fn7BOg= X-Received: by 2002:a25:ae14:: with SMTP id a20mr287688ybj.129.1615918980312; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 11:23:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Lonero Foundation Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 14:22:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ceaeae05bdab7419" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 19:27:39 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 18:23:03 -0000 --000000000000ceaeae05bdab7419 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" In regards to my BIP proposal, I finally added a bit more details to the draft. So far an interesting discussion to say the least. Best regards, Andrew On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 9:23 AM Thomas Hartman via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > MY LORD HIS EXCELLENCY: > > It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning. > > Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to > smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more > profitable. > > To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you > pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed. > > The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency, > but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular > free markets in energy. > > That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven > underground. > > Your humble subject etc. > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via > bitcoin-dev wrote: > > > > Good Afternoon, > > > > It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current > cost of mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected > because it is considered censorship and Bitcoin has a consensus to allow > anyone to mine but, since mining requires specific hardware and energy > requirements it is already a form of censorship where most on the planet > except for the top 6% I am guessing here, cannot afford to mine. Without > affecting the current algorithm, I have previously begun to explore the > process by which mining can be turned into a lottery with only authorized > payto addresses able to mine valid blocks, since transaction fees and block > rewards exist to pay the miner. It would be better even if the algorithms > are improved if there are some ways that only a subset of miners can > produce valid blocks for any given period, say for 12 months with four > groups starting three months apart to transition, and maybe limit mining to > 50 people per continent to produce valid blocks at any o > ne time. Possibly this requires a consortium to oversee the lottery but > it is something Bitcoin can handle themselves, and would do better to > handle than to wait for government intervention as we have seen previously > in China where power was too cheap Bitcoin was banned entirely. > > > > KING JAMES HRMH > > Great British Empire > > > > Regards, > > The Australian > > LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) > > of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire > > MR. Damian A. James Williamson > > Wills > > > > et al. > > > > > > Willtech > > www.willtech.com.au > > www.go-overt.com > > and other projects > > > > earn.com/willtech > > linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson > > > > > > m. 0487135719 > > f. +61261470192 > > > > > > This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this > email if misdelivered. > > ________________________________ > > From: bitcoin-dev on > behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > > Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM > > To: Devrandom > > Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion > > Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST > Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining > > > > Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my > cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles > problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC > network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I do > want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regards to > this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If things such > as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very > least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at > least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just > let me know on the preferred format? > > > > Best regards, Andrew > > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to > renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the > most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness > of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki > format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal? > > > > Best regards, Andrew > > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom > wrote: > > > > Hi Ryan and Andrew, > > > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ > > "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work" > > on | 04 Aug 2015 > > > > > > Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining > market will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward. It does > not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost. > > > > Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities and > that we should move to other resources. I would argue that the negative > externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so the > point is likely moot. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > bitcoin-dev mailing list > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --000000000000ceaeae05bdab7419 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In regards to my BIP proposal, I finally added a bit more= details to the draft. So far an interesting discussion to say the least.
Best regards, Andrew

On Tu= e, Mar 16, 2021, 9:23 AM Thomas Hartman via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation= .org> wrote:
MY LORD HIS EXC= ELLENCY:

=C2=A0 It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning.
=C2=A0 Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more
profitable.

=C2=A0 To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you
pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed.

=C2=A0 The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency, but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular
free markets in energy.

=C2=A0 That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven underg= round.

=C2=A0 Your humble subject etc.





On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Good Afternoon,
>
> It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current c= ost of mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected because= it is considered censorship and Bitcoin has a consensus to allow anyone to= mine but, since mining requires specific hardware and energy requirements = it is already a form of censorship where most on the planet except for the = top 6% I am guessing here, cannot afford to mine. Without affecting the cur= rent algorithm, I have previously begun to explore the process by which min= ing can be turned into a lottery with only authorized payto addresses able = to mine valid blocks, since transaction fees and block rewards exist to pay= the miner. It would be better even if the algorithms are improved if there= are some ways that only a subset of miners can produce valid blocks for an= y given period, say for 12 months with four groups starting three months ap= art to transition, and maybe limit mining to 50 people per continent to pro= duce valid blocks at any o
=C2=A0ne time. Possibly this requires a consortium to oversee the lottery b= ut it is something Bitcoin can handle themselves, and would do better to ha= ndle than to wait for government intervention as we have seen previously in= China where power was too cheap Bitcoin was banned entirely.
>
> KING JAMES HRMH
> Great British Empire
>
> Regards,
> The Australian
> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
> MR. Damian A. James Williamson
> Wills
>
> et al.
>
>
> Willtech
> www.willtech.com.au
> www.go-overt.com
> and other projects
>
> earn.com/willtech
> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson
>
>
> m. 0487135719
> f. +61261470192
>
>
> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this= email if misdelivered.
> ________________________________
> From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin= -dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM
> To: Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net>
> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lis= ts.linuxfoundation.org>
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Da= tastore for Energy Efficient Mining
>
> Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my cryptog= raphy proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles proble= ms such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC network co= uld be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I do want to do= this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regards to this manner a= nd can provide useful insight to the community. If things such as bigger bl= ock height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very least an up= grade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at least warran= t some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just let me know o= n the preferred format?
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation <loneroass= ociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to r= enewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the most= out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness of i= t, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki format = on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftyb= ox.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Ryan and Andrew,
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.truthcoin.info/= blog/pow-cheapest/
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0"Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work" >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on | 04 Aug 2015
>
>
> Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining mar= ket will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.=C2=A0 It does= not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.
>
> Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities an= d that we should move to other resources.=C2=A0 I would argue that the nega= tive externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so = the point is likely moot.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfou= ndation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000ceaeae05bdab7419--