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"
Cc: Michael Dubrovsky <mike@powx.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Low Energy Bitcoin PoW
Precedence: list

--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--