path: root/43/0ad4b653db324f1fd8bdff26ff7a431e217212

Return-Path: <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CC7C0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri,  5 Mar 2021 21:11:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A754ECBC
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri,  5 Mar 2021 21:11:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.199
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[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 NIzfN2shV_-f
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri,  5 Mar 2021 21:11:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6B964ECA1
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri,  5 Mar 2021 21:11:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id 7so3589785wrz.0
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:11:15 -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;
 bh=11cl0UmxwKl7c+KaNjKtjxTzWJ4sp9DxNYA3hFum+uw=;
 b=uMrDEIpvPhCSB5MWbdEEXEyFsMX0Gu5hq6UsYVXulP1keqyOCSHbWbqwGMrwPFA0ap
 WONlb98GOddQvR8SwcL5AX1jFdjdHjfx9ERjFVhJU7FKV1gDP43Pr+GKaSxs3JTf/oFX
 y4m3x6yAu9FK9NrY6k1pon+jddqnJC/yY7OCNYUY84en94QcVjLe/elbRlOi0Ucr4SqY
 MDp335RCSvD4YzsHliBdTpX+G28s5Ea0PimXd1c0GUeeouVsezaKOq7sfcD5ZVno2yA8
 +EveS+2OI1jxH1EWivOo/RlURGVULalb+1NdM8WlcFoDcTsIb1Y7MMdT9l+slgQMIN1P
 3G1g==
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=11cl0UmxwKl7c+KaNjKtjxTzWJ4sp9DxNYA3hFum+uw=;
 b=OKGwYgh47xrEYygZF+kPKRUT4uLiWjvEWLhk+P2++yOWdkBGb5kzOxEAwoNfNBBvAR
 LwN8iFQYKPVUZIg+AU2RQsHdQY3kGhW8569T/PTH4HHjjheacA5S91PqeFjwDgTQp/qf
 U1+XU7l2SwnPozAULLzU0iNv2hABfa6jhLVTPebBJUIpC6saB29EM7iJ1IqhNXlFLW+v
 cMImg0tAUr1TrpkEIQObeaGZ4Tm8addcdVuA7W6JNttbA/gaCD04T8zbY2OjKpRKrMfI
 oqoSjqnt4aLeGXUXki0+NbniHUZd8fkbadl5c6q7TvLjVltVi/LtpCam9bF9XfQ/k+GQ
 ipdg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530R/eq8tXKr0DMlo8VP/BDjCUOTBh3mSbi/9vZqapqEZ7OcQ9qm
 KVsQqBYS560Qq4EVFQLv4MtCvB0BHHcMNVvmGC4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzp8t5LESmy/bFdt1EMNeC8QCqD3tbHWBsqdpwa3FnYEqaEkViXcxzkdc6QRI70spF9ppktqRHT/x4ur+M6Q8M=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4e85:: with SMTP id e5mr11430288wru.218.1614978673907; 
 Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:11:13 -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>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YkXXwfS7eer5Za_ed9tCNdfOp4c3nV_X=mfXzoDxMm6BrizQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 14:11:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CALeFGL31M5DAULLRtCwjPYHaPVqsVqREUg6WQ2-cuj23SNk=BA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>, 
 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002d9ba905bcd08603"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 22:21:51 +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: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 21:11:17 -0000

--0000000000002d9ba905bcd08603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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
useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when
submitting 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 therefore 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 will
invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities
and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining 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 more 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 where they can be bribed
by entities with a vested interest in deciding what the 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 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 <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-dev
>

--0000000000002d9ba905bcd08603
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">It is important to understand that it is critical for the =
work to be &quot;useless&quot; in order for the security model to be the sa=
me. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing=
 at stake when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block=
 construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful=C2=A0in=
 a different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actual=
ly degrades the security of the network in the process.<div><br></div><div>=
As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will in=
validate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities and =
disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may com=
pute these more &quot;useful&quot; proofs of work. This is because any chan=
ge in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change i=
n the future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that n=
o entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at lar=
ge. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed by e=
ntities with a vested interest in deciding what the new &quot;useful&quot; =
proof of work should be.</div><div><br></div><div>All of these things make =
the Bitcoin network worse off.</div><div><br></div><div>Keagan</div></div><=
br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri,=
 Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left=
:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iter=
ate 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 simplici=
ty, I do want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regar=
ds to this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If thing=
s such as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at t=
he very least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography d=
oes at least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP,=
 just let me know on the preferred format?<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div =
dir=3D"auto">Best regards, Andrew</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero=
 Foundation &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@gmail.com" target=3D"_b=
lank">loneroassociation@gmail.com</a>&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"><div dir=3D"auto">Hi, this isn&#39;t about=
 the energy efficient argument in regards to renewables or mining devices b=
ut a better cryptography layer to get the most out of your hashing for vali=
dation. I do understand the arbitrariness of it, but do want to still propo=
se a document. Do I use the Media Wiki format on GitHub and just attach it =
as my proposal?<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Best regards, =
Andrew</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"=
gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:c=
1.devrandom@niftybox.net" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">c1.devrandom=
@niftybox.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty=
le=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddi=
ng-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Ryan and Andrew,<br=
></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr"=
>On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"m=
ailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; =
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0=
px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
=C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/" rel=3D"nor=
eferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.tru=
thcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/</a><br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 &quot;Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work&quot;<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 on | 04 Aug 2015<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Just to belabor this a bit, the paper =
demonstrates that the mining market will tend to expend resources equivalen=
t to miner reward.=C2=A0 It does not prove that mining work has to expend *=
energy* as a primary cost.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Some might argue th=
at energy expenditure has negative externalities 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 renewables, so the point is likely  moo=
t.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>

--0000000000002d9ba905bcd08603--