summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/57/137da2ed18719e8e20a2f891eeeb67a50512b9
blob: 97c8b1379b2052095344dc1af52f2077bb63a192 (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
Return-Path: <mike@powx.org>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AF5C0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF2A40494
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
 HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=powx-org.20150623.gappssmtp.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 7aTotUW4w-7e
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:48 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732])
 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C0D740487
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id v8so8814087qkv.1
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Tue, 18 May 2021 03:59:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=powx-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id
 :references:cc:in-reply-to:to;
 bh=lBc3eqcWuaZMrVolS+HrTa7DMT0evmU3kUeg8qwhMEY=;
 b=tW4N0Y+DxxBn7gFd5M1ogqqHom/O1XtHKNx5FaSjhOwpaJtU15VWsCkP3qB5lCUe1j
 jBV/L19y74LP1VrIDx0L+2uwwbzXMCcve9U5OrAu4XwfJzLnMdh8wUmFh+n42zkdp08v
 xISLBIotJ+fdt/dRqBUSBcX7ijgwtlYXSkClGGEfeTnrKSEVDkAhvxPPmxwsbzijcdjG
 sDL+LvOVZRHOt/QF5WvAu+fexFFS+RAcSQKMH+qCDMc+p7j9ZcitLaqdWnyd2slL3cKP
 dngG3y3m7gUcqJ8gAD76qxg3JwObov8A9qFEhCPtgK1DAVnBgzALxGcQfPHGtwr6mW38
 4Gqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version
 :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to;
 bh=lBc3eqcWuaZMrVolS+HrTa7DMT0evmU3kUeg8qwhMEY=;
 b=Z7Udn0eyn8MzvAYsVy5B/d9zIUuLb0ks5azPiMQu3a/r/9qiHUnFA+M5uKywoy2K2R
 UMLR6pWXjlKYjCZxGDNCN6i7MJXb6e29hUHWvSv2J0b0UeELaqNfL1YOD4SJMjeptu1E
 e2KjPdsfBXPCvtkf52fYrsttTCODWf3zhQJuDwMJu52u6yOjokF/AsyZX8zAaVzaiF4j
 TcNDndPbDWSd0NotrQYcBYB1Deo4tBMi+u1P5FnOdXW4QSiHD1Rpa4RbrIUyvLV7R0XT
 fJsg5l8yLtGWm/peX1G0nwsZIKTGp6sltQotnV9095ezK/a+uA0evGzL0I5rlNB1F4T/
 FqzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tZWI6Z1+ssh26TlzfNpSnoS31tSFpIBFTd9363QEk67yufd0R
 iMytuJ67Em+aILbmloOTlzOey7IjmVMq8A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQ4kBkZ383TCUwcWwZ3QUb29QOinn4GnK2kA8OHBFmkfqkpK/ZYXtXelkMKSTOmUnk59rqeA==
X-Received: by 2002:ae9:c010:: with SMTP id u16mr4689005qkk.133.1621335586902; 
 Tue, 18 May 2021 03:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2607:fb90:6827:242b:154:8df4:2b09:2c03?
 ([2607:fb90:6827:242b:154:8df4:2b09:2c03])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f19sm12887979qkg.70.2021.05.18.03.59.46
 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Tue, 18 May 2021 03:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary=Apple-Mail-913FE5AB-5736-465E-9925-31D09C0EF831
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: mike@powx.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 06:59:46 -0400
Message-Id: <B3B200B0-73BE-46BC-A462-4A255486E6DC@powx.org>
References: <CAB0O3SUm0JJ7rdQZNuH+6AKhC3SiXSsoBAoGpLZS7YJawWBS3Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB0O3SUm0JJ7rdQZNuH+6AKhC3SiXSsoBAoGpLZS7YJawWBS3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D70)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:24:16 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Low Energy Bitcoin PoW
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: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:49 -0000


--Apple-Mail-913FE5AB-5736-465E-9925-31D09C0EF831
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Devrandom is correct to point out that there is nuance to these things and i=
t=E2=80=99s better to look at the details rather than proclaiming that PoW i=
s PoW. (I do agree though w the original point that other ideas often turn o=
ut to reduce to PoW despite their convoluted architecture)

A note on the key difference between hardware and energy as it relates to ce=
ntralization:

Hardware is easily transferable. If you have low electricity costs, Bitcoin A=
SICS need to be physically located in proximity to use it. You can=E2=80=99t=
 sell your low power costs on an open liquid market (you can sell your hash r=
ate but that still requires all the miners next to the power plant). Hardwar=
e can be sold online freely to anyone anywhere in the world.

If a small number of foundries are producing low energy opow hardware (just a=
s there are a small number producing SHA256 ASICS- in fact it would be the s=
ame set foundries, somewhat expanded because optical chips use larger, older=
 nodes... for example Global Foundries has a great photonics process at 90nm=
), they can (and will) still sell the hardware to people all over the world.=
=20

There is a huge latent demand for BTC mining. Many people currently buying a=
lt coins or even BTC would prefer to invest in mining if they could turn a p=
rofit despite their high energy cost.

Another clear benefit would be the difficulty of detecting and controlling l=
ow energy mining relative to the ASIC-warehouse-next-to-waterfall model used=
 today. You can=E2=80=99t move a waterfall if the local government decides t=
o regulate you.

Just some thoughts.=20



Sent from my iPhone

> On May 18, 2021, at 5:18 AM, Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BF
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:
>>=20
>> When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects=
 until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you w=
ill realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.
>=20
> Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalities.  T=
he whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externalities relate=
d to energy production.
>=20
> Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construction, productio=
n) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, we should be interes=
ted in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types of CAPEX.
>=20
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:20 PM Keagan McClelland wrote:
>=20
>> First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the chip manufact=
uring process, rather than eliminating it. And it may trade some marginal am=
ount of the energy consumption for the set of resources it takes to educate a=
nd create chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that cost being funneled=
 back into more energy consumption [...]
>=20
> I challenge you to substantiate these assertions.  Real-estate and human c=
ognitive work are not energy intensive and are a major factor in the expecte=
d costs of some alternative PoWs.  The expected mining effort is such that t=
he cost will reach the expected reward, no more, so there is every reason to=
 believe that energy consumption will be small compared to the current PoW.
>=20
> Therefore, the total associated negative externalities for the alternative=
 PoWs may well be much lower than the externalities of energy production.  T=
his needs detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction.
>=20

--Apple-Mail-913FE5AB-5736-465E-9925-31D09C0EF831
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3D=
utf-8"></head><body dir=3D"auto"><div><span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -w=
ebkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Devrandom is correct to point out that there i=
s nuance to these things and it=E2=80=99s better to look at the details rath=
er than proclaiming that PoW is PoW. (I do agree though w the original point=
 that other ideas often turn out to reduce to PoW despite their convoluted a=
rchitecture)</span></div><span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-si=
ze-adjust: auto;"><div><br></div><div>A note on the key difference between h=
ardware and energy as it relates to centralization:</div></span><div style=3D=
"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"><div style=3D"c=
aret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div><font color=3D"#000000"><br></font></d=
iv><div><font color=3D"#000000">Hardware is easily transferable. If you have=
 low electricity costs, Bitcoin ASICS need to be physically located in proxi=
mity to use it. You can=E2=80=99t sell your low power costs on an open liqui=
d market (you can sell your hash rate but that still requires all the miners=
 next to the power plant).&nbsp;</font><span style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">=
Hardware can be sold online freely to anyone anywhere in the world.</span></=
div><div><font color=3D"#000000"><br></font></div><div><font color=3D"#00000=
0">If a small number of foundries are producing low energy opow hardware (ju=
st as there are a small number producing SHA256 ASICS- in fact it would be t=
he same set foundries, somewhat expanded because optical chips use larger, o=
lder nodes... for example Global Foundries has a great photonics process at 9=
0nm), they can (and will) still sell the hardware to people all over the wor=
ld.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font color=3D"#000000"><br></font></div><div><fo=
nt color=3D"#000000">There is a huge latent demand for BTC mining. Many peop=
le currently buying alt coins or even BTC would prefer to invest in mining i=
f they could turn a profit despite their high energy cost.</font></div><div>=
<font color=3D"#000000"><br></font></div><div><font color=3D"#000000">Anothe=
r clear benefit would be the difficulty of detecting and controlling low ene=
rgy mining relative to the ASIC-warehouse-next-to-waterfall model used today=
. You can=E2=80=99t move a waterfall if the local government decides to regu=
late you.</font></div><div><font color=3D"#000000"><br></font></div><div><fo=
nt color=3D"#000000">Just some thoughts.&nbsp;</font></div><div><font color=3D=
"#000000"><br></font></div></div></div><font color=3D"#000000"><br class=3D"=
Apple-interchange-newline" style=3D"caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-=
size-adjust: auto;"><br></font><div dir=3D"ltr"><font color=3D"#000000">Sent=
 from my iPhone</font></div><div dir=3D"ltr"><font color=3D"#000000"><br></f=
ont><blockquote type=3D"cite"><font color=3D"#000000">On May 18, 2021, at 5:=
18 AM, Devrandom &lt;c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net&gt; wrote:<br><br></font></bloc=
kquote></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div dir=3D"ltr"><font color=3D"#0000=
00">=EF=BB=BF</font><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr"><=
font color=3D"#000000">On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:<br></font>=
</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"=
margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left=
:1ex"><font color=3D"#000000"><br>
When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects un=
til you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you will=
 realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.<br></font></blo=
ckquote><div><font color=3D"#000000"><br></font></div><div><font color=3D"#0=
00000">Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalitie=
s.&nbsp; The whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externalit=
ies related to energy production.<br></font></div><div><font color=3D"#00000=
0"><br></font></div><div><font color=3D"#000000">Depending on the details, C=
APEX (R&amp;D, real-estate, construction, production) may have less external=
ities, and if that's the case, we should be interested in adopting a PoW tha=
t is intensive in these types of CAPEX.</font></div><div><font color=3D"#000=
000"><br></font></div><div><font color=3D"#000000">On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2=
:20 PM Keagan McClelland wrote:</font></div><div><font color=3D"#000000"><br=
></font></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0=
.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><font col=
or=3D"#000000">First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the c=
hip manufacturing process, rather than eliminating it. And it may trade some=
 marginal amount of the energy consumption for the set of resources it takes=
 to educate and create chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that cost b=
eing funneled back into more energy consumption [...]</font></div></blockquo=
te><div><font color=3D"#000000"><br></font></div><div><font color=3D"#000000=
">I challenge you to substantiate these assertions.&nbsp; Real-estate and hu=
man cognitive work are not energy intensive and are a major factor in the ex=
pected costs of some alternative PoWs.&nbsp; The expected mining effort is s=
uch that the cost will reach the expected reward, no more, so there is every=
 reason to believe that energy consumption will be small compared to the cur=
rent PoW.<br></font></div><div><font color=3D"#000000"><br></font></div><div=
><font color=3D"#000000">Therefore, the total associated negative externalit=
ies for the alternative PoWs may well be much lower than the externalities o=
f energy production.&nbsp; This needs detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk rea=
ction.<br></font></div><div><br></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>=

--Apple-Mail-913FE5AB-5736-465E-9925-31D09C0EF831--