Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9FCC0001 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:11:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8F8340187 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:11:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.789 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (public key: not available)" header.d=ericmartindale.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 usgA1F9EANoj for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:11:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:58 by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail.verit.ae (mail.verit.ae [213.239.212.102]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11701400CC for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:11:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from authenticated-user (mail.verit.ae [213.239.212.102]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.verit.ae (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B463E100B6C for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 03:02:54 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=ericmartindale.com; s=mail; t=1615773774; bh=J6tqxTc2HPoTINnvigHfF8PiUiIJXjpueqKykqIIjwE=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=UZJDiGNOJyQXac42Ggyf40J4NX0vBc9YCuQ4SHGhoQmJeSFIY/AOZtQtoIvK2do09 0powzexSl8KLoaGhStgApNuHpYay6K2TC998SWZEVPmBv3LBGW5b86zHU70357P/HL TX2eoba4r16/NSQUyMnXdGJsmjBT40Pm+tYlbd9RxRNKcCP643r+78d7yXQtN/zmOm cYW790SIKI4OeYk4BliR3aJqfDQJiF80CaG0I9LdKya7t83AqESSJ0HHjgRENSBIah kChHxOYr5ADTFGc6FIJpnUeN5PgB3w+h47KW/5aw5aADlEZpDiQNggyP8rL/fK48q6 XGrExDvE35TZg== Received: from authenticated-user (mail.verit.ae [213.239.212.102]) for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532mY3QiXKumf/V418GFPZnZVeYfCy208DBRsYdCCM2qacmSA6eQ O0srkhs4tmBiQof26FASit93O0R9AUiAlVldjCw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlg2vGo75PuzbaNxd5nag2+eposOXyfeRTblo8Sktl0yuTBspYSNm86msMzPb+vgoIV4i0uunmuBQ/+Hr4GUY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:a04f:: with SMTP id gz15mr20912655ejc.293.1615773774203; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Eric Martindale Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:02:42 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d94fce05bd89a580" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:15:27 +0000 Cc: Devrandom 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: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:11:58 -0000 --000000000000d94fce05bd89a580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Bitcoin's security is derived from the energy consumption of mining, so reducing the overall expenditure would be an objective decrease in resilience. As a miner, your efficiency at converting energy into hashpower is the driving factor in your profitability, so this and any other future attempts to decrease the cost of attacking Bitcoin receives a hard NACK from me. If you're concerned about missing out on the subsidy or fee revenue, grab any number of the sub-500mSAT USB miners and get access to cheap power. Sincerely, Eric Martindale, relentless maker. Founder & CEO, Fabric, Inc. +1 (919) 374-2020 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 one 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 > --000000000000d94fce05bd89a580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bitcoin's security is derived from the energy consumpt= ion of mining, so reducing the overall expenditure would be an objective de= crease in resilience.=C2=A0 As a miner, your efficiency at converting energ= y into hashpower is the driving factor in your profitability, so this and a= ny other future attempts to decrease the cost of attacking Bitcoin receives= a hard NACK from me.

If you're concerned about missing out on t= he subsidy=C2=A0or fee revenue, grab any number of the sub-500mSAT USB mine= rs and get access to cheap power.

Sincerely,

Eric Martindale, relentless maker.
Founder & CEO, <= a href=3D"https://fabric.fm" target=3D"_blank">Fabric, Inc.
+1 (919) 374-2020


On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HI= S EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:
Good Afternoon,

It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current cost o= f mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected because it i= s 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 t= o 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 th= e miner. It would be better even if the algorithms are improved if there ar= e some ways that only a subset of miners can produce valid blocks for any given period, say for 12 months wi= th four groups starting three months apart to transition, and maybe limit m= ining to 50 people per continent to produce valid blocks at any one time. P= ossibly 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 w= e have seen previously in China where power was too cheap Bitcoin was banne= d 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.

=C2=A0
Willtech
and other projects
=C2=A0


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not con= stitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
Fro= m: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.or= g> on behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM
To: Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio= n.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST = Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining
=C2=A0
Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate th= at my cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also t= ackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the B= TC 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 usefu= l 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 cryptogra= phy 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 <loneroassociatio= n@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 arbit= rariness 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.devr= andom@niftybox.net> wrote:
Hi Ryan and Andrew,

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev = <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat= ion.org> wrote:

=C2=A0 https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 on | 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.=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--000000000000d94fce05bd89a580--