Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5742CC0001 for ; Sun, 16 May 2021 15:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4CC40244 for ; Sun, 16 May 2021 15:30:35 +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: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 MhnQOe5feRR9 for ; Sun, 16 May 2021 15:30:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-io1-xd2b.google.com (mail-io1-xd2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2b]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 287A840247 for ; Sun, 16 May 2021 15:30:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-xd2b.google.com with SMTP id i7so3427123ioa.12 for ; Sun, 16 May 2021 08:30:33 -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=9YVVo5TXb7qYp6TykCc7clFVABSCLo5Us0VyD1xL5Wc=; b=qn0TIfFJgaWWAzpCyUn4yiFIRP/ZEe4hYWkBeQVar6IYxHVRfZ/kjT31/BadVzs6IM snoXNJjsVDi+jDXZooLDv2HJbnwQQ+S3OK1t0920HOKUY6K6Ix3LmWThPaR11fQYvAhY vf9DzGDsNNBg4riv+1GvSTWQG3uuK9xDVck4iJSBRCXrazcywTwRxgFpDEuc+lrF9Bfa pnfurpQwvV0YxT1uk/BqPl7hI2WPifGudGPU0YPPkxSIXMPyWxgVJqBumONY1RGkNwRd HNBefvl4rDJEdSHhVKdf0Yj8NKhRyPsOuKvSnZMUCPON+Xj2M2JmwoKW3/o0Dlinec6p ekoQ== 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=9YVVo5TXb7qYp6TykCc7clFVABSCLo5Us0VyD1xL5Wc=; b=gQm8saMjZ1U5Sfo6vkhQ6kEOiE/Jkr6peTZG1+IsYBbp0znfmvqcSIugA2ozpkH44q 4Vgs41qISVaH8+qV93AQ9PxHFK8axyVGbdEtC3O0Kpjm72LDHnlIgg2Scs5A6ehnHL2Y kAmZl2bsfDi6v/SeHksjIsjkS7NPpTIx9tkiJpZAsZgE3962ctAPA/keeehtllqgTJ9e ezwBYd5DvjA5vgQapRIKVlQcOxhCY0d2s5QQWCy9GBTavJetBxDrOkbhr6HEO6UJpNIx 3C2snATtaNLGARsFTB3QI918WlMbCqgIT4lWjj0AvddHuS6v4z9Ns1Dh+/BXG6SaukGy 4qdQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532px8RnsV86CuwH5IaHxlsSgjq55YAgEiD/HRoMUH0ZiYG24haY QFB44h2u0T5Iw07cddeokJWfam8px6w5Ug8V9WyJlDeU X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxf9CjZ1RCm0oDbxgnmtiyYMPDvTxOeIam8w2y6BPD5ct2R74+/XnoXb1auouWfgdbjX21XJApPxiFrgP2EuUI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:1242:: with SMTP id o2mr52318016jas.10.1621179033322; Sun, 16 May 2021 08:30:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Zac Greenwood Date: Sun, 16 May 2021 17:30:22 +0200 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Michael Fuhrmann Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000066084f05c2742872" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 16 May 2021 15:52:50 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Force to do nothing for first 9 minutes to save 90% of mining energy 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: Sun, 16 May 2021 15:30:35 -0000 --00000000000066084f05c2742872 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Michael, Your proposal won=E2=80=99t save any energy because it does nothing to decr= ease the budget available to mine a block (being the block reward). Even if it were technically possible to find a way for nodes to somehow reach consensus on a hash that gets generated after 9 minutes, all it achieves is that miners will be expending the entire budget given to them in the form of the block reward within a single minute on average. Also please realize that the energy expenditure of Bitcoin is a fundamental part of its design. An attacker has no other option than to expend as much as half of all the miners together do in order for a sustained 51% attack to be successful, making such attack uneconomical. Zac On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 23:57, Michael Fuhrmann via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > Hello, > > Bitcoin should create blocks every 10 minutes in average. So why do > miners need to mine the 9 minutes after the last block was found? It's > not necessary. > > Problem: How to prevent "pre-mining" in the 9 minutes time window? > > Possible ideas for discussion: > > - (maybe most difficult) global network timer sending a salted hash time > code after 9 minutes. this enables validation by nodes. > > - (easy attempt) mining jobs before 9 minutes have a 10 (or 100 or just > high enough) times higher difficulty. so everyone can mine any time but > before to 9 minutes are up there will be a too high downside. It is more > efficient to wait then paying high bills. The bitcoin will get a "puls". > > > I dont think I see all problems behind these ideas but if there is a > working solution to do so then the energy fud will find it's end. Saving > energy without loosing rosbustness. > > > > :) > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev > --00000000000066084f05c2742872 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Michael,

Your proposal won=E2=80=99t save any energy because it does nothing t= o decrease the budget available to mine a block (being the block reward).

Even if it were technical= ly possible to find a way for nodes to somehow reach consensus on a hash th= at gets generated after 9 minutes, all it achieves is that miners will be e= xpending the entire budget given to them in the form of the block reward wi= thin a single minute on average.

Also please realize that the energy expenditure of Bitcoin is a f= undamental part of its design. An attacker has no other option than to expe= nd as much as half of all the miners together do in order for a sustained 5= 1% attack to be successful, making such attack uneconomical.

Zac

On Sat, 15 May 2021 at 23:57,= Michael Fuhrmann via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Hello,

Bitcoin should create blocks every 10 minutes in average. So why do
miners need to mine the 9 minutes after the last block was found? It's<= br> not necessary.

Problem: How to prevent "pre-mining" in the 9 minutes time window= ?

Possible ideas for discussion:

- (maybe most difficult) global network timer sending a salted hash time code after 9 minutes. this enables validation by nodes.

- (easy attempt) mining jobs before 9 minutes have a 10 (or 100 or just
high enough) times higher difficulty. so everyone can mine any time but
before to 9 minutes are up there will be a too high downside. It is more efficient to wait then paying high bills. The bitcoin will get a "puls= ".


I dont think I see all problems behind these ideas but if there is a
working solution to do so then the energy fud will find it's end. Savin= g
energy without loosing rosbustness.



:)
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000066084f05c2742872--