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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFBFC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 06:47:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1508340518
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 06:47:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.301 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,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, HK_SCAM_S7=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.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 Q4j2as0XvAug
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 06:47:14 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40130.protonmail.ch (mail-40130.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.130])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DBAF40548
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 06:47:13 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 06:46:58 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1621320430;
bh=UnPWdmi8iMJKxwDykNAJI4VvvI5ltYt2e2oZxaRT7wg=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=p6a+dOCs1mq2CPaFapQkweSklY08eVTYe66277DdjFvoBniRiyQssepHsp0FpIsr0
XFQk2xe0fzOTJ3AQS+MzXFPFlH8mIqWvi229CBqjSBt7SEszX7AZ2/H5nPBjCvsdAV
QtdTJyPtQROnRxyzlT4sP32hzTyh2uz66IEwl+1I=
To: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <ZFVpoVGcwTTpDDlAXLn8cCwic0l40b3DmE_UoKIv4IvmFDDX9W2F1sRHYwido1X7OK0fX1QAx5J8I5DokM4pcIKziNAgAwc6emrHulfbRE8=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALeFGL3U2yb2WVz4rwcBqO25kd0B7NcgrN4iMjDyackrTTegpw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGFmrSac+Ej1a6da8GcPK1pB_kgowtQk5roaDCVsL9t1zgwEFA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALeFGL3U2yb2WVz4rwcBqO25kd0B7NcgrN4iMjDyackrTTegpw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 06:47:16 -0000
> A few things jump out at me as I read this proposal
>
> First, deriving the hardness from capex as opposed to opex switches the p=
rivilege from those who have cheap electricity to those who have access to =
chip manufacturers/foundries. While this is similarly the case for Bitcoin =
ASICS today, the longevity of the PoW algorithm has led to a better distrib=
ution of knowledge and capital goods required to create ASICS. The creation=
of a new PoW of any kind, hurts this dimension of decentralization as we w=
ould have to start over from scratch on the best way to build, distribute, =
and operate these new pieces of hardware at scale. While I have not combed =
over the PoW proposed here in fine detail, the more complicated the algorit=
hm is, the more it privileges those with specific knowledge about it and th=
e manufacturing process.
>
> The competitive nature of Bitcoin mining is such that miners will be will=
ing to spend up to their expected mining reward in their operating costs to=
continue to mine. Let's suppose that this new PoW was adopted, miners will=
continue to buy these chips in ever increasing quantities, turning the afo=
rementioned CAPEX into a de facto OPEX. This has a few consequences. First =
it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the chip manufacturing pr=
ocess, 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 cr=
eate chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that cost being funneled bac=
k into more energy consumption is to make the barrier to understanding of t=
he manufacturing process sufficiently difficult so as to limit the prolifer=
ation of these chips. Again, this privileges the chip manufacturers as well=
as those with close access to the chip manufacturers.
>
> As far as I can tell, the only thing this proposal actually does is creat=
e a very lucrative business model for those who sell this variety of chips.=
Any other effects of it are transient, and in all likelihood the transient=
effects create serious centralization pressure.
>
> At the end of the day, the energy consumption is foundational to the syst=
em. The only way to do away with authorities, is to require competition. Th=
is competition will employ ever more resources until it is unprofitable to =
do so. At the base of all resources of society is energy. You get high ener=
gy expenditure, or a privileged class of bitcoin administrators: pick one. =
I suspect you'll find the vast majority of Bitcoin users to be in the camp =
of the energy expenditure, since if we pick the latter, we might as well ju=
st pack it in and give up on the Bitcoin experiment.
Keagan is quite correct.
Ultimately all currency security derives from energy consumption.
Everything eventually resolves down to proof-of-work.
* Proof-of-space simply moves the work to the construction of more storage =
devices.
* Proof-of-stake simply moves the work to stake-grinding attacks.
* The optical proof-of-work simply moves the work to the construction of mo=
re miners.
* Even government-enforced fiat is ultimately proof-of-work, as the operati=
on and continued existence of any government is work.
It is far better to move towards a more *direct* proof-of-work, than to add=
more complexity and come up with something that is just proof-of-work, but=
with the work moved off to somewhere else and with additional moving parts=
that can be jammed or hacked into.
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.
At least, proof-of-work is honest about its consumption of resources.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
