Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B87C0001 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:32:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E368340C for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:32:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KJZ27ULsxHI8 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:32:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com (mail-yb1-xb30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30]) by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 917D6833CB for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:32:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id f145so15297945ybg.11 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 19:32:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NxddJynycXn9wYgnGM2kTyaG7v5gQjG/1L2uM4zDXUg=; b=IB9uF9uk7GMvHPY00wCp5DyrEX1WipbzJfCtTDITBXX1PXY2efNGI7YZoeHxEroZNT 4JEdZoQFG90LpEDqFcYIp0KyU2eYUzLIPXgh4IEz3byE9wpCL4uYleH2d2ztp3Qjf1uO elv5KG+OYyBw6O8MQd9E0PENVDSfre3hvpvYvHIEw+lnRjnGlTrnOsfFuTW/BJ/cz3Xj p+1RYftjbXcH3dw3ef+0dAwvtsum4Pss/XJRTF5rYSzmP/FQwFKbTO4+KYYFjtR0hm+7 gCn7RYUg60o/tW6EFNYAZNcI+bXuALlAebd0f4G3aPQQT4rnnZeyZTSFsdzQlKquEfwA 8fzg== 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=NxddJynycXn9wYgnGM2kTyaG7v5gQjG/1L2uM4zDXUg=; b=YiIf33i7/J7Z3F+NBf5gwhgffLBOYMIvJ9aKLTGd+fwpj7tUZ/3qfVgqXjJ65RKSep pImHgDWBYHtH2GE4N6nSge3kCdeNpyTZWuCj7pzNiTBmFL4+vbsFU4sYfn+/mPIgte2j pCWi7vN/QBaza2neKvwd+IAQG/9X0rJsV48Q4HdPt5whZFFjzQpJOQjORUpax8870DhB 8OOI+K46Z3TrSoCRaLXjna6OOd7KToL8Yb1I9Fdp3XB5tFPzVqdGOeeVJj46smYMVhr3 Ur1zvSU/cUVCF/B0bsfeoUs8S9nn21R8vGKiVhyOLN5IPOMpEtovRYaiXKM1TukwXp5I R5kQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533nYxpCQobQYIfJA1nDB3o8x8EdAGAnihuyzOAp7qXuGfXNHTl/ EpfflKuZDERVCsIhkcKQ69IpGziCWVyLK3Ve71Q= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwlz3ehmAmvJm5ONxvPXXcCQOEPjIyvx/ryFNiuMK9rkAFI/3Yo9Pl1DI/0eoQ3bnMwWn9oSC74uBGE1EoB7O0= X-Received: by 2002:a25:b206:: with SMTP id i6mr32868795ybj.499.1615775563039; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 19:32:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Lonero Foundation Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:32:31 -0400 Message-ID: To: Eric Martindale Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000078c7c005bd8a10fd" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:22:59 +0000 Cc: Devrandom , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:32:46 -0000 --00000000000078c7c005bd8a10fd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi, just to clarify this isn't a trade-off on security. Infact, my proposal actually increases the level of security that Bitcoin currently has. There is both an efficiency and cryptography aspect to this proposal. I talked about the higher levels of security a bit in my BIP, and have talked to a few about energy consumption. Outside of consumption of energy however, is the fact that BTC can be more adaptable towards a major range of hardware without disenfranchising others or other major trade-offs. There is no need for BTC to specifically be tailored towards ASICs if the same level of proof of work can be done from other hardware sources at similar costs. The technology and level of cryptography between now and when Satoshi started BTC development 14 years ago is also fastly different. BTC went from you can mine lots of Bitcoin by literally downloading the whitepaper, to USB miners, to ASICs to now whole entire mining centers. This is because of complexity, but that complexity in the near future can be entirely meaningless if it is vulnerable to some of the things many cryptography experts are worried about. Keep in mind this is in draft mode, but over time as further implementation is done, alot of the community including yourself might start being impressed by the more and more tangible results. Best regards, Andrew On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:02 PM Eric Martindale wrote: > Bitcoin's security is derived from the energy consumption of mining, so > reducing the overall expenditure would be an objective decrease in > resilience. As a miner, your efficiency at converting energy into > hashpower is the driving factor in your profitability, so this and any > other future attempts to decrease the cost of attacking Bitcoin receives a > hard NACK from me. > > If you're concerned about missing out on the subsidy or fee revenue, grab > any number of the sub-500mSAT USB miners and get access to cheap power. > > Sincerely, > > Eric Martindale, relentless maker. > Founder & CEO, Fabric, Inc. > +1 (919) 374-2020 > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via > bitcoin-dev wrote: > >> Good Afternoon, >> >> It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current cost >> of mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected because it >> is considered censorship and Bitcoin has a consensus to allow anyone to >> mine but, since mining requires specific hardware and energy requirements >> it is already a form of censorship where most on the planet except for the >> top 6% I am guessing here, cannot afford to mine. Without affecting the >> current algorithm, I have previously begun to explore the process by which >> mining can be turned into a lottery with only authorized payto addresses >> able to mine valid blocks, since transaction fees and block rewards exist >> to pay the miner. It would be better even if the algorithms are improved if >> there are some ways that only a subset of miners can produce valid blocks >> for any given period, say for 12 months with four groups starting three >> months apart to transition, and maybe limit mining to 50 people per >> continent to produce valid blocks at any one time. Possibly this requires a >> consortium to oversee the lottery but it is something Bitcoin can handle >> themselves, and would do better to handle than to wait for government >> intervention as we have seen previously in China where power was too cheap >> Bitcoin was banned entirely. >> >> KING JAMES HRMH >> Great British Empire >> >> Regards, >> The Australian >> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) >> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire >> MR. Damian A. James Williamson >> Wills >> >> et al. >> >> >> Willtech >> www.willtech.com.au >> www.go-overt.com >> and other projects >> >> earn.com/willtech >> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson >> >> >> m. 0487135719 >> f. +61261470192 >> >> >> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this >> email if misdelivered. >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* bitcoin-dev on >> behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >> *Sent:* Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM >> *To:* Devrandom >> *Cc:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion >> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST >> Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining >> >> Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my >> cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles >> problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC >> network 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 manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If things such >> as bigger 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 < >> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to >> renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the >> most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness >> of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki >> format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal? >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom >> wrote: >> >> Hi Ryan and Andrew, >> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-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 mining market >> will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward. It does not >> prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost. >> >> Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities and >> that we should move to other resources. I would argue that the negative >> 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 >> > --00000000000078c7c005bd8a10fd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, just to clarify this isn't a trade-off on securit= y. Infact, my proposal actually increases the level of security that Bitcoi= n currently has. There is both an efficiency and cryptography aspect to thi= s proposal. I talked about the higher levels of security a bit in my BIP, a= nd have talked to a few about energy consumption.=C2=A0
Outside of consumption of energy however, is the = fact that BTC can be more adaptable towards a major range of hardware witho= ut disenfranchising others or other major trade-offs. There is no need for = BTC to specifically be tailored towards ASICs if the same level of proof of= work can be done from other hardware sources at similar costs. The technol= ogy and level of cryptography between now and when Satoshi started BTC deve= lopment 14 years ago is also fastly different. BTC went from you can mine l= ots of Bitcoin by literally downloading the whitepaper, to USB miners, to A= SICs to now whole entire mining centers.=C2=A0

<= /div>
This is because of complexity, but that complexity i= n the near future can be entirely meaningless if it is vulnerable to some o= f the things many cryptography experts are worried about. Keep in mind this= is in draft mode, but over time as further implementation is done, alot of= the community including yourself might start being impressed by the more a= nd more tangible results.

Best= regards, Andrew

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:02 PM Eric Martindal= e <eric@ericmartindale.com> wrote:

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via = bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Good Afternoon,

It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current cost o= f mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected because it i= s considered censorship and Bitcoin has a consensus to allow anyone to mine= but, since mining requires specific hardware and energy requirements it is already a form of censorship where = most on the planet except for the top 6% I am guessing here, cannot afford = to mine. Without affecting the current algorithm, I have previously begun t= o explore the process by which mining can be turned into a lottery with only authorized payto addresses able to = mine valid blocks, since transaction fees and block rewards exist to pay th= e miner. It would be better even if the algorithms are improved if there ar= e some ways that only a subset of miners can produce valid blocks for any given period, say for 12 months wi= th four groups starting three months apart to transition, and maybe limit m= ining to 50 people per continent to produce valid blocks at any one time. P= ossibly this requires a consortium to oversee the lottery but it is something Bitcoin can handle themselves, = and would do better to handle than to wait for government intervention as w= e have seen previously in China where power was too cheap Bitcoin was banne= d entirely.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.

=C2=A0
Willtech
and other projects
=C2=A0


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not con= stitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
From: bitcoin-dev <bit= coin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Lonero Foun= dation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda= tion.org>
Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM
To: Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@l= ists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST = Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining
=C2=A0
Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate th= at my cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also t= ackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the B= TC network 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 manner and can provide usefu= l insight to the community. If things such as bigger block height have been= proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptogra= phy 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 <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in= regards to renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to= get the most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbit= rariness of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki format 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 = <bitcoin-dev@lists.l= inuxfoundation.org> wrote:

=C2=A0 https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 on | 04 Aug 2015


Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining mar= ket will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.=C2=A0 It does= not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.

Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities an= d that we should move to other resources.=C2=A0 I would argue that the nega= tive externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so = the point is likely moot.=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--00000000000078c7c005bd8a10fd--