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
|
Return-Path: <miron@hyper.to>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491DDC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5E6405BD
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:40 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249,
HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Qir0A9kZRmGP
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:38 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-ej1-f45.google.com (mail-ej1-f45.google.com
[209.85.218.45])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81726405B9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ej1-f45.google.com with SMTP id lg14so13430056ejb.9
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:37 -0700 (PDT)
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=yQIb0oUwrd5dlBKz35dU2GDIUwrIUBtfFUV6YIH9SZs=;
b=Cu1rzLBi0qiMH1/obwzW860bN/XNY4cyIprJhiUgysrVHzHCD8G50eD+2J9ekeLSQS
kAFhfeHnFLRgLnLynur6DJESNJySsQTCB+u27ooBt4r32ghV+0n7FhfgSD02QeIDaxXT
CCloZzTjJ0jRNpVipirKUE3ev5/laJLMfQO3L8QbPuUOrmPFvXO4r2cNNDHSzp+vXhyj
/EVKEH6shImMC2P2fVULIlLClFwDf7aw2fawS6GYOhMUQkBWT2Xgit1GlqBCXhi97DL1
5WU4Qhcd4GDh8bAKuWW9VEOoQXFCgdmlO2icxaUZSl3Sq2yGTi9urpoRSQ047C4AgkZu
REgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GxsBUOTI94ok2uraTmy9TH251El6cfU08HrTGh7jiXGINiDr8
p89tIolAFwAR28AzAxcEMLyivUsLLGXFmS9KLOluqQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSk6KroHlAtfsngFVWoI3R6B1gU6GZH9ZLNsZhK2HaKw2QOXytBsWTS7MGPA0f7QsRExDFV4Sm13VC7q7psM4=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:ad9a:: with SMTP id
la26mr5135485ejb.122.1621329516413;
Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGFmrSac+Ej1a6da8GcPK1pB_kgowtQk5roaDCVsL9t1zgwEFA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALeFGL3U2yb2WVz4rwcBqO25kd0B7NcgrN4iMjDyackrTTegpw@mail.gmail.com>
<ZFVpoVGcwTTpDDlAXLn8cCwic0l40b3DmE_UoKIv4IvmFDDX9W2F1sRHYwido1X7OK0fX1QAx5J8I5DokM4pcIKziNAgAwc6emrHulfbRE8=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZFVpoVGcwTTpDDlAXLn8cCwic0l40b3DmE_UoKIv4IvmFDDX9W2F1sRHYwido1X7OK0fX1QAx5J8I5DokM4pcIKziNAgAwc6emrHulfbRE8=@protonmail.com>
From: Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAB0O3SUm0JJ7rdQZNuH+6AKhC3SiXSsoBAoGpLZS7YJawWBS3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3d60a05c2973118"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:52:40 +0000
Cc: Michael Dubrovsky <mike@powx.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 09:18:40 -0000
--000000000000e3d60a05c2973118
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:
>
> 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
> will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.
>
Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalities.
The whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externalities
related to energy production.
Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construction,
production) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, we should
be interested in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types of CAPEX.
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:20 PM Keagan McClelland wrote:
First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the chip
> 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
> being funneled back into more energy consumption [...]
>
I challenge you to substantiate these assertions. Real-estate and human
cognitive work are not energy intensive and are a major factor in the
expected costs of some alternative PoWs. The expected mining effort is
such 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 current PoW.
Therefore, the total associated negative externalities for the alternative
PoWs may well be much lower than the externalities of energy production.
This needs detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction.
--000000000000e3d60a05c2973118
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Mon, May 17, 2021=
at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid r=
gb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects u=
ntil you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you wi=
ll realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.<br></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>Let's not simplify away economic considerations=
, such as externalities.=C2=A0 The whole debate about the current PoW is ab=
out negative externalities related to energy production.<br></div><div><br>=
</div><div>Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construct=
ion, production) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, w=
e should be interested in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types o=
f CAPEX.</div><div><br></div><div>On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:20 PM Keagan Mc=
Clelland wrote:</div><div><br></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>First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the=
chip manufacturing process, rather than eliminating it. And it may trade s=
ome marginal amount of the energy consumption for the set of resources it t=
akes to educate and create chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that c=
ost being funneled back into more energy consumption [...]</div></blockquot=
e><div><br></div><div>I challenge you to substantiate these assertions.=C2=
=A0 Real-estate and human cognitive work are not energy intensive and are a=
major factor in the expected costs of some alternative PoWs.=C2=A0 The exp=
ected mining effort is such that the cost will reach the expected reward, n=
o more, so there is every reason to believe that energy consumption will be=
small compared to the current PoW.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Therefore,=
the total associated negative externalities for the alternative PoWs may w=
ell be much lower than the externalities of energy production.=C2=A0 This n=
eeds detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction.<br></div><div><br></div><=
/div></div>
--000000000000e3d60a05c2973118--
|
