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
|
Return-Path: <earonesty@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5EAC000B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:03:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CA1606CA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:03:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id r_Dq9vS3YTvM
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:02:59 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com
[IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e])
by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA96960687
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:02:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id
q6-20020a17090a4306b02900c42a012202so11181121pjg.5
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 07:02:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=AZo04FpCNEoBG/mzu/XqrRv400iAHM2lWEVWZmiX608=;
b=EB1hBIk2cYg+m1h0jWZmKFOWI+DytU4Tb2Ms7Jbjwnd5FNScqc/cZMi/th7K3Y8yrP
84ujfOHf9qVpSdBAPaJa9HdAEhxpuvgbIu9crehtiPBjK9wp9aQmi2KoR1SU31eLpJTr
LpQzku2vDqjQalYCaSCTE4ekcCTJhd4hWS4kLQIx1bCQb+ZJxXp0wWoMbgkJBVesJdEk
KcsKy0FS98uxbDM+7MCfBeqa6RNRMNqUiLNSpeo5n0b3EMbolgKwshXEOXyyngAP5ze+
u7tAYRTHg1pfmQFZvWUD+TvGjuaxNPDwj2x6guEKUqja+nKz+cJxuhDsyNVlKaZV1iVL
ZkYA==
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=AZo04FpCNEoBG/mzu/XqrRv400iAHM2lWEVWZmiX608=;
b=erHSx1IK2HoKUupkRwlN3Jl+YGYeR7Yt/yw8qaIF29xfQJ63Ck50sRc6hfIyhJhyli
Ddrs/jHB9l6AiiRnntxu5HjDZcgWWPv6y7iNZy8JSMZJiMs1pIkDG5A7a4sL8OWH6w5L
sLIOB+2MQzsW3pDpuZxcb3uSMqRtn7QxrsmkTiyQ7pSIlVg9BFXQuS7NChSPgEfg6MAh
rW8vMDeayghtd7DPxYoM4Ia17XBSYaUuabcHDe4IZqTxNEBe/lys09MGfHGlxDA88rH1
6n/pfiFE9FcZ6NJ7ZKWpT1OtEq2z9jGpH39joQ/9+LtEbsVXY/nPTAbY+lhARYoFwiSv
PtBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532+7ZEx1tYgEGGfFg4b3eARX1GlRN7tn30kZBm8hdBVaiSzARd0
4P8DRlRDhxFY7+Cc1VojmPZp/gK4ugHThYv5kX6sXWg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyd1AdbDWIWKvcPrbc3/oGZ5E+60Z0dd7/Q0Z8dImXAwmtBtrZhTrZhJGzRk+LEAtPDiRxo8gRzexv3buU/ucg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:d341:: with SMTP id
i1mr9525977pjx.74.1615561379113;
Fri, 12 Mar 2021 07:02:59 -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>
<CALC81CMDQf4PqxRisQw58OL7QSFeMcQTvLMvmtOGJ_ya4-dhLg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+YkXXyP=BQ_a42J=RE7HJFcJ73atyrt4KWKUG8LbsbW=u4b5w@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+YkXXw1AiMqCoPk_pUOdDMfkGF_T+aURGAjGK=MTa7jtAQchg@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+YkXXy1Y407UDdEjRVjzBFOCmaUKDoZkvqtXkxkmXmMdNrwBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YkXXy1Y407UDdEjRVjzBFOCmaUKDoZkvqtXkxkmXmMdNrwBQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 10:02:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJowKgKPga1Cr3B7vHgGWrLdTzt-DqgbcngWNdyYF7QoAcER8w@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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 22:02:31 +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, 12 Mar 2021 15:03:02 -0000
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/bitcoi=
n/bips/pull/1084
>
> Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference im=
plementation.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.c=
om> 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.mediawiki
>> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft m=
ode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I want =
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 doing 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 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 runnin=
g on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had trouble=
finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point thou=
gh is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able to b=
enefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in relatio=
n to the disinfranchisemet point.
>>>> >
>>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP p=
ull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any ques=
tions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way peopl=
e don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies still ge=
t seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say to emai=
l 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 accidentally impoli=
tely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already establishe=
d 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@gm=
ail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and n=
on-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't disenf=
ranchise 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 <b=
itcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time hybrid which is muc=
h different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusion as PoC is more co=
mmonly used then PoST.
>>>> >>> There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Proof o=
f 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. There are lots of =
benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already looked into nume=
rous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the cryptography com=
munity attempted to propose. The actual argument you have only against this=
is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partially true. Given how th=
e current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocation wouldn't be of mu=
ch benefit given it is more optimized for CPU/ASIC specific mining. I'm wor=
king towards a hybrid mechanism that fixes that. BTW: The way Bitcoin curre=
ntly stands in its cryptography still needs updating regardless. If someone=
figures out NP hardness or the halting problem the traditional rule of mil=
lions of years to break all of Bitcoin's cryptography now comes down to min=
utes. Bitcoin is going to have to eventually radically upgrade their crypto=
graphy 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 p=
rovide 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 w=
here integrating such complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or=
minor 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 capit=
al expenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future capital expendi=
ture into mining hardware that may compute these more "useful" proofs of wo=
rk."
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and no=
n-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit from a h=
ybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't disenfr=
anchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrade like this is be=
neficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized. It=
is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My go=
al outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents su=
ch 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 com=
puting. I believe if the BTC community likes such a proposal, I would singl=
e handedly be able to build the cryptographic proof myself (though would li=
ke as many open source contributors as I can get :)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Anyways just something to consider. We are in the same space in re=
gards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against staking.
>>>> >>> https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurren=
cy-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclellan=
d@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 work w=
as useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when su=
bmitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction wil=
l be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different context a=
nd therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades the securi=
ty of the network in the process.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorit=
hm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining ent=
ities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware th=
at may compute these more "useful" 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 "useful" proof of w=
ork 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 c=
ryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles =
problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC netw=
ork 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 ma=
nner and can provide useful insight to the community. If things such as big=
ger 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 <loneroassociati=
on@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards t=
o renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the m=
ost out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness o=
f it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki form=
at 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 <bit=
coin-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 mi=
ning market will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward. It d=
oes not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative external=
ities and that we should move to other resources. I would argue that the n=
egative 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
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> 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
|