Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9F78C0001 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B00F840267 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.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 UModZNh2_TmX for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D826140246 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:58:59 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1621335547; bh=BMkvxSPLOCnsmQPZqeNyzxkVY4dEW6SPyKxmCwP2P3Q=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=UlW5GCN9EQnGx/U9MhuAUHHTBUUuf97K9qHtXZodY7UP82bsaw18k8ZSlhChl/O9l P/aWc/0c/kZMGLoya4c356pegB/coOFs2qJwYr2X56bLBcbnTrl1clr/iGRr6Q1KX+ QESkrLmBWW7zQpNaaxM1QlyCS3z8OZT2bNZa3aqo= To: Devrandom From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:11 -0000 Good morning devrandom, > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj: > > > When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effec= ts until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point yo= u will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway. > > Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalities.= =C2=A0 The whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externaliti= es related to energy production. > > Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construction, producti= on) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, we should be inter= ested in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types of CAPEX. Then let us also not forget another important externality: possible optimiz= ations of a new PoW algorithm that risk being put into some kind of exclusi= ve patent. I think with high probability that SHA256d as used by Bitcoin will no longe= r have an optimization as large in effect as ASICBOOST in the future, simpl= y because there is a huge incentive to find such optimizations and Bitcoin = has been using SHA256d for 12 years already, and we have already found ASIC= BOOST (and while patented, as I understand it the patent owner has promised= not to enforce the patent --- my understanding may be wrong). Any alternative PoW algorithm risks an ASICBOOST-like optimization that is = currently unknown, but which will be discovered (and possibly patented by a= n owner that *will* enforce the patent, thus putting the entire ecosystem a= t direct conflict with legacy government structures) once there is a good i= ncentive (i.e. use in Bitcoin) for it. Regards, ZmnSCPxj