Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671FBC0001 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457F04ED76 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 FRf9Lml64IE0 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb32.google.com (mail-yb1-xb32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b32]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD6F84ED71 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb32.google.com with SMTP id n195so26034749ybg.9 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 08:55:02 -0800 (PST) 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 :cc; bh=oxAy9JxQcb6Sk6FKCrt1D0kQg25ndQg757oZspWj3b0=; b=CLNthzoDGveDn7uRsFhYdKjfiH2UwdpqDXMmPrCYGQQlQEF1oxTJu7yjSAibfnJe5O JvVJMs7tjeQ8LHbiTJAbU+HosPbLMOywezcu4G2DAqkmCBeWU6hVFE9Wj+UYU+eQJQOK OJhlj2ONhSQMtAJm0oPTBOvUM7F4VcpaWqhpd52xXxB9X0sz/8ryhwOgx+FF+WwRZy5o 6PSkNBY9PrhkghzLjfCzhP0UB7Nmlpl7uuDURBhqkC+Z3rz4uLjwvnsa9xUUmfVNX9PB cPfxR+y/3AoUJfUeRYpyCcs/erlJHPjNvRBCF1M90f4N+ckxvroNcVLKiYtWgBhUU/4d TvYA== 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=oxAy9JxQcb6Sk6FKCrt1D0kQg25ndQg757oZspWj3b0=; b=aTAT+kTKg7faEjL27WLa5pkrSUdDxUPjLMslQHlSDCsa7BuK3S1gHvNwepE0TU30eI yarvC+55426wNNiA9ZBtX6sAHYEgv4GbD8yKAsaC7o8Y7E9zV8BdQmrVrtyj1dr6hE3U pFTRcD1x1K6q6uTiTA6OQIMQ9ydn5+oXP8lGBdTZA7hgbaoJBPc1JB9dldb9bfyH3LGL ExMR4pGQgzf8q8FkFsPrOhE1w15eZFTON+dqFnfAL27bPLqO466HP2QRyBTpuba1IuY7 RGHTnuGgASKRUk5WUCI73M5FjLKWfKdG/xo1Kk8L9mTHVo5ckL/w5zPYbQmIp3tJRvT3 vWSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530YEO4XmDrJQkoyRC8pOzOZcaKHWitQKmVGdln1VNJ74+iHrhuZ wmEucp/VERzi7sbl7FbhNnJbFDZtsWK6a6oDbvk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwHX42zcNyij/x7i654QBpOgesRLsrJmv+9J2LR3NaX8S/uqSLsmvYvlvPme/aLoa89o8u0S3IfHIL3H6RlP7w= X-Received: by 2002:a5b:591:: with SMTP id l17mr20416178ybp.60.1615568101520; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 08:55:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Lonero Foundation Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 11:54:49 -0500 Message-ID: To: Erik Aronesty Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cd397c05bd59c2b0" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 22:02:31 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 16:55:05 -0000 --000000000000cd397c05bd59c2b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I might rephrase it. In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status. This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am personally looking into developing as a hard fork. Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty wrote: > secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages > and some degree of technical merit. > > i suggest you start here: > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D225690.0 > > proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always > suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven > equivalent. you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged, > burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine. > > - erik > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev > wrote: > > > > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084 > > > > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference > implementation. > > > > Best regards, Andrew > > > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: > https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.media= wiki > >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft > mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I wa= nt > to work on. > >> > >> Best regards, Andrew > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> [off-list] > >>> > >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing > a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. > >>> > >>> Best regards, Andrew > >>> > >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe < > ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> As said before, you are free to create the BIP in your own repositor= y > >>>> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a PR > >>>> > >>>> Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev > >>>> escreveu no dia s=C3=A1bado, > >>>> 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58: > >>>> > > >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes > running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had > trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The > point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still = be > able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was > in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. > >>>> > > >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP > pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any > questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way > people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies > still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions s= ay > to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since > people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually > anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. > >>>> > > >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but > rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentall= y > impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already > established some interest for at least a draft. > >>>> > > >>>> > Does that seem fine? > >>>> > > >>>> > Best regards, Andrew > >>>> > > >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland < > keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and > non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit from= a > hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't > disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you hav= e > supporting evidence for this? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Keagan > >>>> >> > >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev = < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time hybrid which is > much different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusion as PoC is mo= re > commonly used then PoST. > >>>> >>> There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Proof > of Work as it normally stands: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space > >>>> >>> It has rarely been done though given the technological complexit= y > of being both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatible. There are lots o= f > benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already looked into > numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the cryptograp= hy > community attempted to propose. The actual argument you have only against > this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partially true. Given > how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocation wouldn't = be > of much benefit given it is more optimized for CPU/ASIC specific mining. > I'm working towards a hybrid mechanism that fixes that. BTW: The way > Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography still needs updating > regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the halting problem the > traditional rule of millions of years to break all of Bitcoin's > cryptography now comes down to minutes. Bitcoin is going to have to > eventually radically upgrade their cryptography and hashing algo in the > future regardless. I want to integrate some form of NP complexity in > regards to the hybrid cryptography I'm aiming to provide which includes a > polynomial time algorithm in the cryptography. More than likely the first > version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such > complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or minor upgrade to it= s > chain. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> In regards to the argument, "As a separate issue, proposing a > hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of > capital expenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future capital > expenditure into mining hardware that may compute these more "useful" > proofs of work." > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and > non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit from= a > hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't > disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well. > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrade like this is > beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized= . > It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. M= y > goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevent= s > such an event from happening in the future, if it was to ever happen. I > have various research in regards to this area and work alot with > distributed computing. I believe if the BTC community likes such a > proposal, I would single handedly be able to build the cryptographic proo= f > myself (though would like as many open source contributors as I can get := ) > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Anyways just something to consider. We are in the same space in > regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against staking= . > >>>> >>> > https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop= -telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> Best regards, Andrew > >>>> >>> > >>>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < > keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work > to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the wo= rk > was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when > submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction > will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different > context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades > the security of the network in the process. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing > algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by > mining entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining > hardware that may compute these more "useful" proofs of work. This is > because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and > subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even mor= e > risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the > bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where > they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest in deciding what th= e > new "useful" proof of work should be. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> All of these things make the Bitcoin network worse off. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> Keagan > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-de= v > wrote: > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my > cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackl= es > 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 d= o > 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 su= ch > as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the ve= ry > 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 th= e > most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrarines= s > 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 < > c1.devrandom@niftybox.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: > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>>>> 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 > >>>> > > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> > 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 > --000000000000cd397c05bd59c2b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key= validation in relation to that section as well as the hashing related to t= hose keys. I might rephrase it.=C2=A0

In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to = get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to= follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references i= mplementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.<= /div>

This will take about 400= hours of my time, but is something I am personally looking into developing= as a hard fork.

Keep in= mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do = at the very least hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic proof= s and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.

Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 = AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> w= rote:
secp236k1 isn't a hashing= algo.=C2=A0 =C2=A0your BIP needs about 10 more pages
and some degree of technical merit.

i suggest you start here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic= =3D225690.0

proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.=C2=A0 =C2=A0i always<= br> suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
equivalent.=C2=A0 =C2=A0you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows age= d,
burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.

- erik

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:=
>
> Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084
>
> Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference= implementation.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroasso= ciation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: https://github.com/= Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki
>> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into d= raft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I= want to work on.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <loner= oassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [off-list]
>>>
>>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion befor= e doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <ricard= ojdfilipe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As said before, you are free to create the BIP in your own= repository
>>>> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you c= an do a PR
>>>>
>>>> Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o= rg> escreveu no dia s=C3=A1bado,
>>>> 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58:
>>>> >
>>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage = of nodes running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mini= ng. Had trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt.= The point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would sti= ll be able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this= was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point.
>>>> >
>>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to= submit a BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft = format and any questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's c= omments. That way people don't have to get emails everytime there is a = reply, but replies still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since t= he instructions say to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have d= one that. Since people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't me= rged manually anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bit= coin-dev but rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want= to accidentally impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list an= d we already established some interest for at least a draft.
>>>> >
>>>> > Does that seem fine?
>>>> >
>>>> > Best regards, Andrew
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > A large portion of BTC is already mined thro= ugh AWS servers and non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them = would benefit from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that m= anner wouldn't disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as we= ll.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish c= laim. Do you have supporting evidence for this?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Keagan
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation = via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Actually I mentioned a proof of space and tim= e hybrid which is much different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confus= ion as PoC is more commonly used then PoST.
>>>> >>> There is a way to make PoC cryptographically = compatible w/ Proof of Work as it normally stands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space
>>>> >>> It has rarely been done though given the tech= nological complexity of being both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatibl= e. There are lots of benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I alr= eady looked into numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in= the cryptography community attempted to propose. The actual argument you h= ave only against this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partial= ly true. Given how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocat= ion wouldn't be of much benefit given it is more optimized for CPU/ASIC= specific mining. I'm working towards a hybrid mechanism that fixes tha= t. BTW: The way Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography still needs up= dating regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the halting proble= m the traditional rule of millions of years to break all of Bitcoin's c= ryptography now comes down to minutes. Bitcoin is going to have to eventual= ly radically upgrade their cryptography and hashing algo in the future rega= rdless. I want to integrate some form of NP complexity in regards to the hy= brid cryptography I'm aiming to provide which includes a polynomial tim= e algorithm in the cryptography. More than likely the first version of my B= TC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such complexity in th= e future only requires a soft fork or minor upgrade to its chain.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> In regards to the argument, "As a separa= te issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate th= e enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities and disincentiv= ize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may compute these = more "useful" proofs of work."
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> A large portion of BTC is already mined throu= gh AWS servers and non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them w= ould benefit from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that ma= nner wouldn't disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as wel= l.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There are other reasons why a cryptography up= grade like this is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn'= t fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from bei= ng entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography = in a way that prevents such an event from happening in the future, if it wa= s to ever happen. I have various research in regards to this area and work = alot with distributed computing. I believe if the BTC community likes such = a proposal, I would single handedly be able to build the cryptographic proo= f myself (though would like as many open source contributors as I can get := )
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Anyways just something to consider. We are in= the same space in regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argumen= t against staking.
>>>> >>> https://hackernoon.com/eth= ereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-p= i3s3yjl
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Best regards,=C2=A0 Andrew
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClell= and <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is = critical for the work to be "useless" in order for the security m= odel to be the same. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actor= s to have nothing at stake when submitting a proof of work, since the margi= nal cost of block construction will be lessened by the fact that the work w= as useful in a different context and therefore would have been done anyway.= This actually degrades the security of the network in the process.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> As a separate issue, proposing a hard for= k in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital e= xpenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure= into mining hardware that may compute these more "useful" proofs= of work. This is because any change in the POW algorithm will be considere= d unstable and subject to change in the future. This puts the entire networ= k at even more risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to = that of the bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a posi= tion where they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest in decidin= g what the new "useful" proof of work should be.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> All of these things make the Bitcoin netw= ork worse off.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Keagan
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Fou= ndation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound= ation.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 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 whic= h is something the BTC network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sa= ke of simplicity, I do want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the i= ssues in regards to this manner and can provide useful insight to the commu= nity. If things such as bigger block height have been proposed as hard fork= s, 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 se= nd 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 ener= gy efficient argument in regards to renewables or mining devices but a bett= er 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 docu= ment. Do I use the Media Wiki format on GitHub and just attach it as my pro= posal?
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Dev= random <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ryan and Andrew,
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 A= M Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linux= foundation.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 | 0= 4 Aug 2015
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Just to belabor this a bit, t= he paper demonstrates that the mining market 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 and that we should move to other res= ources.=C2=A0 I would argue that the negative externalities will go away so= on 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<= /a>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _____________________________________________= __
>>>> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou= ndation.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
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfou= ndation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000cd397c05bd59c2b0--