summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/32/f80c1303d646b68c3107b83f2787421e8b0885
blob: a7e9ae61c8879f62a608579117e0be3c96d8faa6 (plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
Return-Path: <ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A75C0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  6 Mar 2021 15:21:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03AFA43001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  6 Mar 2021 15:21:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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,
 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 L8pQkywXFwWA
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  6 Mar 2021 15:21:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ed1-x52d.google.com (mail-ed1-x52d.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52d])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 781A642FB0
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat,  6 Mar 2021 15:21:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id bd6so7319094edb.10
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Sat, 06 Mar 2021 07:21:25 -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
 :content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=43oA/MMNav6YMY6kApkYlI2AlIDAbEXHGxNtXAr1dv0=;
 b=k7v8F7BY3r/8jhoABBh50FyI0GBZ54J1kVCvTX9IvhWUnJlZ6TMVmMNlw3WSTa897+
 fDZO9U9RwSe70dbR7njrt3PKOjNchK12/qMy0pegQpdNG4q/fCFpZcZYnSJYt+wNfZRH
 X64UMFTP5rxs7cczLyqQ17Y6gzsT0cqgmZl7vU14R2y6eIiP+aAMR4/AYG12HMV8Uw6p
 hz7gXCRwCclOX4zSeHodzyGbWOqkPZUmobWLL/O4uH4KrnmmhIjUqlk/GQxuN87G+Vrt
 RN16c5SNgHyhOSI5ys9/Qypy+Gs995gVxId7dIgTlxDBdVwx2LzlDyRCvUS+7i7gMxHM
 0IGA==
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:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=43oA/MMNav6YMY6kApkYlI2AlIDAbEXHGxNtXAr1dv0=;
 b=a5bkIS+QtrE1JALpXTCFcgbd/STYU5WQDWXQkaiYZThxrMfVIE86zfsmlFmIJP1Zqg
 /rBxJalBepGlghbSR37KWMucHr3++wbirCWEMPPWVoqLhjeJKdMnNL/hO0jPFkYQhbaE
 SrFT7iWRAy0nczVLMn3zE3rC+yS4/a2w1UBIhr8TKgCTfQ3iISMraOEtMiU1RU4Ddzay
 IjyzNBtLkPtPyGJwF5Fn0Crvzqv/jJI57ICiftwQgY9cL+Tpx8iguG43VxEFGWYcm3k9
 vRK8LlYg3S/MuOTepsPBUpRmzzc4P+5ZNbHIjdAkknPW0cs44V5bUPiLX+pm1LToC1R9
 ckQg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hLuMt+A4RpyqPaXiAIl45hlVZtwzYbV/o2tKygji+mFjO+lCl
 B7r3Uw65/O/93/OCVS6X3gSBwcIIRyPyhhDuu9c=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyGhRYjIfq8JoOSiX8Xnrgxv1BJ93s2zeIWfhziWMZJZ8sbrDujRaUevWhdRL4L5K2vUlv7MfYk+oR37ov+55s=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:fe06:: with SMTP id f6mr14283852edt.349.1615044084185; 
 Sat, 06 Mar 2021 07:21:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YkXXxUdZFYTa1c-F=-FzoQQVtV3GUmE2Okec-zRAD3xS1qAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMnpzfop8ttqjMAKoS37zpQV6WiZfi1Bn+y_e-HaepTiD4Vm1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB0O3SVNyr_t23Y0LyT0mSaf6LONFRLYJ8qzO7rcdJFnrGccFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwkSCu=2UOEhzFBzGDHo1c=Ewqsnxp632ke3jdH1ff5WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwfS7eer5Za_ed9tCNdfOp4c3nV_X=mfXzoDxMm6BrizQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALeFGL31M5DAULLRtCwjPYHaPVqsVqREUg6WQ2-cuj23SNk=BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwBMG6YUAhf-2U5EV5Ep5RgG2foc9chramNFN5=AQ=-EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALeFGL3E-rWW9aJkwre_3UF44vbNxPH2436DvaQdHoqEQ5b+eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXyBmOootb=Kt6CH3yquYVnAZd=fJQqiF_A3p_pkB8QC3g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YkXXyBmOootb=Kt6CH3yquYVnAZd=fJQqiF_A3p_pkB8QC3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 15:21:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CALC81CMDQf4PqxRisQw58OL7QSFeMcQTvLMvmtOGJ_ya4-dhLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 18:13:21 +0000
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 <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 
 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 15:21:28 -0000

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 can do a PR

Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 find=
ing 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 benefi=
t 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 r=
equest 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 see=
n as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bit=
coin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since people want to s=
ee 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 accidentally impolitely =
bother people given this is a moderated list and we already established som=
e 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.c=
om> wrote:
>>
>> > A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and non-as=
ic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit from a hybri=
d proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't disenfranch=
ise currently optimized mining entities as well.
>>
>> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have suppo=
rting evidence for this?
>>
>> Keagan
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoi=
n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time hybrid which is much dif=
ferent than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusion as PoC is more commonl=
y used then PoST.
>>> There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Proof of Wor=
k as it normally stands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space
>>> It has rarely been done though given the technological complexity of be=
ing both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatible. There are lots of benef=
its outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already looked into numerous =
fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the cryptography communit=
y attempted to propose. The actual argument you have only against this is t=
he Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partially true. Given how the cur=
rent hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocation wouldn't be of much be=
nefit 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 figu=
res 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 cryptograph=
y 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 provid=
e 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 mino=
r upgrade to its 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 ex=
penditure 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-asi=
c 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 disenfranchi=
se currently optimized mining entities as well.
>>>
>>> There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrade like this is benefic=
ial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized. It is f=
ew unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My goal ou=
tside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents such an=
 event from happening in the future, if it was to ever happen. I have vario=
us research in regards to this area and work alot with distributed computin=
g. I believe if the BTC community likes such a proposal, I would single han=
dedly be able to build the cryptographic proof 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-st=
op-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl
>>>
>>> Best regards,  Andrew
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gma=
il.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 work was us=
eful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitt=
ing 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 th=
erefore 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 wi=
ll invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities=
 and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that ma=
y 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 more risk meaning that no ent=
ity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at large. I=
t also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed by entiti=
es with a vested interest in deciding what the new "useful" proof of work s=
hould 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-dev <bitc=
oin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my crypto=
graphy proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles probl=
ems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC network c=
ould be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I do want to d=
o 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 b=
lock height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very least an u=
pgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at least warra=
nt 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@gm=
ail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to ren=
ewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the most o=
ut 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 <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 n=
ot 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 negati=
ve externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so th=
e 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