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>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Low Energy Bitcoin PoW
Precedence: list


--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--