summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/3e/825c71e90b76ae7aa1f0090ab852fdbde34518
blob: 49d8df5ac894e79573ed2ef220d8e3ee5585ba1f (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
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
Return-Path: <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8FFAC0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFC5400A4
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:51 +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 LUJttSKAf0YS
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com (mail-yb1-xb30.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03CA0444E5
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id f145so10654336ybg.11
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:21:48 -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=Le1rcUYiDL2AfC8LPODDzEIp5m9utpJm6Y7a4MMQNB0=;
 b=FAWJNxUD1nia/b42jEseOgm46tpGZpC7Q7Xd6qmE5+n93PHehuZBxRp8173atVOOMk
 slbmS2msxsyPOvD8kfBGBHvC/PMXt0ES4zCYLQYazgyyV1PlJk/U+SV7IwxDFPDdudci
 3g4c+enLeY+TYT5gXupvrqLeLESlry8iThOq6kMoRd51Ne65qVg5XQWHEgngSM5pXjeS
 QvPJ0gdM7cWAOUvd+Vu+Arit+bCotp7QonbpEA+hB4ygEs0IPw6pQOcLWVISweH7zmVw
 wsIGyLErG+IDbZ2Fjr05hlpC2YdGbFM8adsZkjpmDtc8ydCZnrIDD99hksRqTk4lN1SX
 Wm3w==
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=Le1rcUYiDL2AfC8LPODDzEIp5m9utpJm6Y7a4MMQNB0=;
 b=CdyJ608gruViv3fOHu6Vny5yCxNDckYZhfGpFQUObK5K/OnicHyOLEmw3P3OuUO+uo
 M5gysHbOdocejFpgBzzwY/pfNIKAvX9B8H3YIZcd0DbzxOMbllcU3HdB4hXkHvLphZb1
 aaALGm1WlIsWlYnHXYmSL0GyT8fvi3oZFbZXkODe/550ulAivITzvHIRF2d4nexhRq9+
 G1j0ov/peAvq1tFvoKOzvzQa4VWCLkBKRKQ7j2LQsfxFqKeisQg3m90EztCy4cS7mBnh
 m8QSwHOj4KBUuHrrnhSeefJVP94OLm3815ooVuNZXvQ45b5o13WJRpVku91vLHi3nCth
 GF5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Tx5KoHAuc4WZwIri7NLxRvEzqLqilvsJlP7wBJpr9llNYn0tQ
 Tb2Q3imf5MdYu8TQYWSHt/QpQDE6ZzGdautJWjY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxA6eXDgRitQROtWQPfC+r3TxHaTw/O/nnjFXkXAQmu+49sDUidBcx4Z5zWgaW8X/CEV3QW9CjiHq/mqmE85bU=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:ae14:: with SMTP id a20mr23715460ybj.129.1615591307812; 
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:21:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YkXXz9aHfZtt-it_8w4ovF=-QaZ4_9vwDS0Kz36qhHwVDC5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <3d65-604bed00-17d-6093c680@171273340>
In-Reply-To: <3d65-604bed00-17d-6093c680@171273340>
From: Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:21:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YkXXzNAWrPPJfDtB-DXaSf9yoojkuEXeCXzkB2_cMtyHfFXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "email@yancy.lol" <email@yancy.lol>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000001255805bd5f2a53"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 22:53:20 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:52 -0000

--00000000000001255805bd5f2a53
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC
hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in
regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an
alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the
future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes
I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once
this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints
explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus
that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I
am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft,
I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to
working on technological implementation.

Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:

> I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be
> very good.
>
> Cheers,
> -Yancy
>
> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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 statu=
s.
>
> 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 <erik@q32.com> 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
>> <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 <
>> 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.medi=
awiki
>> >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draf=
t
>> mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I w=
ant
>> 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 doin=
g
>> 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 reposito=
ry
>> >>>> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a P=
R
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 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. Ha=
d
>> 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 wa=
s
>> in relation to the disinfranchisemet point.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BI=
P
>> 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 wa=
y
>> 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 =
say
>> 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 accidental=
ly
>> 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 an=
d
>> non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit fro=
m 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
>> have 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 m=
ore
>> commonly used then PoST.
>> >>>> >>> There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Proo=
f
>> of Work as it normally stands:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space
>> >>>> >>> It has rarely been done though given the technological
>> complexity of being both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatible. Ther=
e
>> are lots of benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already
>> looked into numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in t=
he
>> cryptography community attempted to propose. The actual argument you hav=
e
>> only against this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partiall=
y
>> 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 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 Bitcoi=
n'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 firs=
t
>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating suc=
h
>> complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or minor upgrade to i=
ts
>> chain.
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> In regards to the argument, "As a separate issue, proposing a
>> hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount o=
f
>> 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 fro=
m 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 decentralize=
d.
>> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. =
My
>> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that preven=
ts
>> 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 pro=
of
>> 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 stakin=
g.
>> >>>> >>>
>> https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-sto=
p-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 w=
ork
>> was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake whe=
n
>> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block constructio=
n
>> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different
>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrade=
s
>> 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 minin=
g
>> 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 mo=
re
>> 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 wher=
e
>> they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest in deciding what t=
he
>> 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-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >>>> >>>>>
>> >>>> >>>>> Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that m=
y
>> cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tack=
les
>> 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 s=
uch
>> as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the v=
ery
>> least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does a=
t
>> least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, jus=
t
>> 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 regard=
s
>> to renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get t=
he
>> most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrarine=
ss
>> 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-de=
v
>> >>>> >>>
>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> >>> 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
>
>
>
>
>

--00000000000001255805bd5f2a53
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn&#=
39;t just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or=
 SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than=
 replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards =
to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe =
lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological imp=
lementation, once this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to c=
reate preprints explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements=
, and consensus that I am working on. This is a highly technologically comp=
lex idea that I am willing to &quot;call my bluff on&quot; and expand upon.=
 As for it being a draft, I think this is a good starting point at least fo=
r draft status prior to working on technological implementation.</div><div>=
<br></div><div>Best regards, Andrew<br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_=
quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 P=
M email@yancy.lol &lt;email@yancy.lol&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg=
b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I think Andrew himself is an algo.=C2=A0 T=
he crypto training set must not be very good.<br><br>Cheers,<br>-Yancy<br><=
br>On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blan=
k">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>=C2=A0<blockquot=
e type=3D"cite" cite=3D"http://CA+YkXXz9aHfZtt-it_8w4ovF=3D-QaZ4_9vwDS0Kz36=
qhHwVDC5Q@mail.gmail.com"><div dir=3D"auto">Hi, I awkwardly phrased that pa=
rt, I was referring to key validation in relation to that section as well a=
s the hashing related to those keys. I might rephrase it.=C2=A0<div dir=3D"=
auto">=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">In regards to technical merit, the main=
 purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BI=
P 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 u=
pgrading to final status.</div><div dir=3D"auto">=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"au=
to">This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am person=
ally looking into developing as a hard fork.</div><div dir=3D"auto">=C2=A0<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto">Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigne=
d a number to references I do at the very least hope to describe various pa=
rts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.<=
/div><div dir=3D"auto">=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto">Best regards, Andrew</=
div></div>=C2=A0<div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_=
attr">On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:er=
ik@q32.com" target=3D"_blank">erik@q32.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px sol=
id rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">secp236k1 isn&#39;t a hashing algo.=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0your BIP needs about 10 more pages<br>and some degree of techn=
ical merit.<br><br>i suggest you start here:<br><br><a rel=3D"noreferrer no=
referrer" href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn" target=3D"_blan=
k">https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn</a><br><a rel=3D"noreferrer nor=
eferrer" href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D225690.0" target=
=3D"_blank">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D225690.0</a><br><br>p=
roof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.=C2=A0 =C2=A0i always<b=
r>suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven<br>equivalent=
.=C2=A0 =C2=A0you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,<br>burn=
ed, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.<br><br>- erik<=
br><br>On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev<b=
r>&lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrot=
e:<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: <a rel=
=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/108=
4" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084</a><br>&gt;<=
br>&gt; Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/refere=
nce implementation.<br>&gt;<br>&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>&gt;<br>&gt; On=
 Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=
=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">loneroassociation=
@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Hi, here is the list to t=
he BIP proposal on my own repo: <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" href=3D"ht=
tps://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki=
" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/ma=
in/bip-draft.mediawiki</a><br>&gt;&gt; Can I submit a pull request on the B=
IPs repo for this to go into draft mode? Also, I think this provides at lea=
st some more insight on what I want to work on.<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; Bes=
t regards, Andrew<br>&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt; On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lon=
ero Foundation &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@g=
mail.com" target=3D"_blank">loneroassociation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&=
gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; [off-list]<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; Okay=
. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing a pull re=
quest on BIP&#39;s repo as the best way to handle it.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&g=
t;&gt;&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, Mar=
 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:=
ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com</a>&=
gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As said before, you are =
free to create the BIP in your own repository<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; and bring=
 it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a PR<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;=
&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&=
gt; &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; es=
creveu no dia s=C3=A1bado,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58:<b=
r>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I know Ethereum had an out=
landishly 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 ta=
ke 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 upgr=
ade I am proposing, as this was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point.=
<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; That said, I think the b=
est way to move forward is to submit a BIP pull request for a draft via Git=
Hub using BIP #2&#39;s draft format and any questions people have can be an=
swered in the reqeust&#39;s comments. That way people don&#39;t have to get=
 emails everytime there is a reply, but replies still get seen as opposed t=
o offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bitcoin-dev befor=
e doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since people want to see the draft b=
eforehand and it isn&#39;t merged manually anyways, I think it is the easie=
st way to handle this.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I&=
#39;m also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rather form=
 a discussion on git instead given I don&#39;t want to accidentally impolit=
ely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already established=
 some interest for at least a draft.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&g=
t;&gt; &gt; Does that seem fine?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&g=
t; &gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &=
gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer=
" href=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">keagan.mccl=
elland@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt; &gt;&gt; &gt; A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS ser=
vers and non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benef=
it from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner would=
n&#39;t disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.<br>&gt;=
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; My instincts tell me tha=
t this is an outlandish claim. Do you have supporting evidence for this?<br=
>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; Keagan<br>&gt;&gt;&=
gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 P=
M Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailt=
o:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@list=
s.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&g=
t;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time =
hybrid which is much different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusio=
n as PoC is more commonly used then PoST.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; =
There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Proof of Work as=
 it normally stands: <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" href=3D"https://en.wi=
kipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space" target=3D"_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org=
/wiki/Proof_of_space</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; It has rarely bee=
n done though given the technological complexity of being both CPU compatib=
le and memory-hard compatible. There are lots of benefits outside of the re=
alm of efficiency, and I already looked into numerous fault tolerant design=
s as well and what others in the cryptography community attempted to propos=
e. The actual argument you have only against this is the Proof of Memory fa=
llacy, which is only partially true. Given how the current hashing algorith=
m works, hard memory allocation wouldn&#39;t be of much benefit given it is=
 more optimized for CPU/ASIC specific mining. I&#39;m working towards a hyb=
rid mechanism that fixes that. BTW: The way Bitcoin currently stands in its=
 cryptography still needs updating regardless. If someone figures out NP ha=
rdness or the halting problem the traditional rule of millions of years to =
break all of Bitcoin&#39;s cryptography now comes down to minutes. Bitcoin =
is going to have to eventually radically upgrade their cryptography and has=
hing algo in the future regardless. I want to integrate some form of NP com=
plexity in regards to the hybrid cryptography I&#39;m aiming to provide whi=
ch includes a polynomial time algorithm in the cryptography. More than like=
ly the first version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integ=
rating such complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or minor upg=
rade to its chain.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt=
;&gt;&gt; In regards to the argument, &quot;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 e=
xpenditure into mining hardware that may compute these more &quot;useful&qu=
ot; proofs of work.&quot;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&=
gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS server=
s 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&#=
39;t disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.<br>&gt;&gt=
;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; There are other rea=
sons why a cryptography upgrade like this is beneficial. Theoretically one =
can argue BItcoin isn&#39;t fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathema=
tical proofs away from being entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency=
 is to build cryptography in a way that prevents such an event from happeni=
ng in the future, if it was to ever happen. I have various research in rega=
rds 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 bu=
ild the cryptographic proof myself (though would like as many open source c=
ontributors as I can get :)<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Anyways just something to consider. We are in the same s=
pace in regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against s=
taking.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" h=
ref=3D"https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency=
-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl" target=3D"_blank">https://hackern=
oon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-=
you-arent-pi3s3yjl</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=
 &gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards,=C2=A0 Andrew<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<b=
r>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McCle=
lland &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com"=
 target=3D"_blank">keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&g=
t;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; It is importan=
t to understand that it is critical for the work to be &quot;useless&quot; =
in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was useful it p=
rovides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitting a pro=
of 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 w=
ould have been done anyway. This actually degrades the security of the netw=
ork in the process.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashin=
g algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by m=
ining entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining ha=
rdware that may compute these more &quot;useful&quot; 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 entity is tying their own interests to that of the bit=
coin 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 the new =
&quot;useful&quot; proof of work should be.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; All of these things make the Bit=
coin network worse off.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Keagan<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&=
gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundati=
on via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lis=
ts.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation=
.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to i=
terate that my cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category b=
ut also tackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is someth=
ing the BTC network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simpl=
icity, I do want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in re=
gards to this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If th=
ings such as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel a=
t the very least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptograph=
y does at least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my B=
IP, just let me know on the preferred format?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&=
gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards, Andrew<b=
r>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a rel=3D"norefer=
rer" href=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">loneroas=
sociation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=
&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi, this isn&#39;t about =
the energy efficient argument in regards to renewables or mining devices bu=
t a better cryptography layer to get the most out of your hashing for valid=
ation. I do understand the arbitrariness of it, but do want to still propos=
e a document. Do I use the Media Wiki format on GitHub and just attach it a=
s my proposal?<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;=
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;=
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, M=
ar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom &lt;<a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:c1.=
devrandom@niftybox.net" target=3D"_blank">c1.devrandom@niftybox.net</a>&gt;=
 wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi Ryan and Andrew,<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;=
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; O=
n Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a rel=3D"nore=
ferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_bl=
ank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&g=
t; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =
=C2=A0<a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" href=3D"https://www.truthcoin.info/b=
log/pow-cheapest/" target=3D"_blank">https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-ch=
eapest/</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0&quot;Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work&quot;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;=
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on | 04 Aug 2015<b=
r>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt=
;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =
Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining market w=
ill 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.<br>&gt;&gt=
;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=
&gt;&gt;&gt; Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative external=
ities and that we should move to other resources.=C2=A0 I would argue that =
the negative externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewab=
les, so the point is likely moot.<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&=
gt;&gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; __________________________=
_____________________<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev =
mailing list<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer"=
 href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfo=
undation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&=
gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; ______________________________________=
_________<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>&gt;=
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@=
lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferre=
r" href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoi=
n-dev</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; _______________=
________________________________<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; bitcoin-dev maili=
ng list<br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitco=
in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org</a><br>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer=
" href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" t=
arget=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin=
-dev</a><br>&gt;<br>&gt; _______________________________________________<br=
>&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto=
:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists=
.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" href=3D"h=
ttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" target=3D"_b=
lank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></b=
lockquote></div></blockquote><br><br><br>=C2=A0
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000001255805bd5f2a53--