Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66DA1C0001 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 20:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B3F42FF2 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 20:53:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VntbfNcTGEQ1 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 20:53:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com (mail-pj1-x102a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E188A42FEE for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2021 20:53:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id l18so2853674pji.3 for ; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 12:53:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=voskuil-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:message-id:date :cc:to; bh=9+ohSIaeyapcUomFxtMFMWKRusAXqWs0OoQo3vEARJ8=; b=ZDHyy0KZD90eY97gg3B2xpXT1bBlRJt+//V4Gbjn4OYkuBb4RiN5P5a/s9XZNr6xR/ A+C+HKYAlFZgXBGspy+FRkOr2F8jyKgmLWdEAOrh3NVpHuDP5iON6P7W/DZ8JtbYeL1/ cr+RWir9bwzN1vH3Q5zdhbrYtelXRPzsmYPVl0gIDglbPbQ+YaZ8BPcNRkqRZBaatHE+ gnqmQVhhgoNeYIY0ZcWs11bITbKGJlG5gEY6J5rtaopVLvXM+PLN0mj9PvHK4CqEK+Zb Gn5UCPamIx8A+6layvetULWlaF1rnVu4l3YmtdZxtTYb3uIKhcFX8xVn1v/dEQ47Mc4O t0Ww== 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:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=9+ohSIaeyapcUomFxtMFMWKRusAXqWs0OoQo3vEARJ8=; b=NkDAiQhIGFk694gJvWUw9ab9ZC2CuaZozca+AZtAfo2Z+h2E5LxTmYN0K6KKBhYUZH ZzrtiA2Gk9SE0ldb/O52v2j9en7cekDiCHQWPN/LlbSaka1W+RscPj74YU+v6Q8Vbzlx F84TlYItoa8mKHd0gX11o4catUi9fIx7I2+YTIS2JgA7uXI0mnDn4tUGuJXxCU9VLutQ ES14Pplz3Wq2qbyoHnHy9CtLOCHOMveLkvx9V0nhxO8kWPgbQTbnGQm89KDSckpfkHP9 e7YVnfYZMAdF+FIIjXxB2N+22oc3HbKfXm+mpacg5gzeSJJcpWcwYLR5fdYP7kFWidNc TLig== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531v7luppPHNI5m3IyY48dsrjKQgnZa5E0V7e/P7MNq8K71mZonn Xy6XKBJ2ErSUNHNO/A7t8JB7SQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxNsFkkqxMBra2WyzZiaPZw5pW22qkqFCyotZOp52HUSrg1UiyEoabMr7XwGCGwQv9Pv87bmg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:987:: with SMTP id 7mr12212418pjo.97.1614977584287; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 12:53:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2601:600:9c00:1d0::250e? ([2601:600:9c00:1d0::250e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id mp19sm14726607pjb.2.2021.03.05.12.53.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 05 Mar 2021 12:53:03 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-02222581-80DB-4F61-8083-2EF33B2C52E9 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Eric Voskuil Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Message-Id: Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 12:53:02 -0800 To: Lonero Foundation , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D52) Cc: Devrandom 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: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 20:53:06 -0000 --Apple-Mail-02222581-80DB-4F61-8083-2EF33B2C52E9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BFHi Andrew, Do you mean that you can reduce the cost of executing the cryptography at a c= omparable level of security? If so this will only have the effect of increas= ing the amount of it that is required to consume the same cost. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Efficiency-Paradox You mentioned a staking hybrid in your original post. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Hybrid-Mining-Fallacy This would be a change to dynamics - the economic forces at work. Staking is= not censorship resistant https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy and is therefore what I refer to as cryptodynamically insecure. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Cryptodynamic-Principle= s As such it wouldn=E2=80=99t likely be considered as a contribution to Bitcoi= n. It might of course be useful in some other context. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Shitcoin-Definition But BIPs are proposals aimed at Bitcoin improvement. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#What_is_a_BIP= Non-staking attempts to improve energy efficiency are either proof of work i= n disguise, such as proof of memory: https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Memory-Fallacy= or attempts to repurpose =E2=80=9Cwasteful=E2=80=9D computing, such as by fi= nding prime numbers, which does not imply a reduction in dedicated energy co= nsumption. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Dedicated-Cost-Principl= e Finally, waste and renewable energy approaches at =E2=80=9Ccarbon=E2=80=9D (= vs energy) reduction must still consume the same in cost as the reward. In o= ther words, the apparent benefit represents a temporary market shift, with a= dvantage to first movers. The market will still consume what it consumes. If= the hashing energy was free all reward consumption would shift to operation= s. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Byproduct-Mining-Fallac= y The motivation behind these attempts is naively understandable, but based on= a false premise. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Waste-Fallacy The one thing that reduces Bitcoin energy consumption is an increase in ener= gy cost relative to block reward. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Exhaustion-Falla= cy e > On Mar 5, 2021, at 07:30, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev wrote: > =EF=BB=BF > Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to renewable= s or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the most out of y= our hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness of it, but do w= ant to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki format on GitHub an= d just attach it as my proposal? >=20 > Best regards, Andrew >=20 > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom wrote:= >> Hi Ryan and Andrew, >>=20 >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev wrote: >>>=20 >>> https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ >>> "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work" >>> on | 04 Aug 2015 >>=20 >> 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 prov= e that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost. >>=20 >> Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities and t= hat we should move to other resources. I would argue that the negative exte= rnalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so the point i= s likely moot.=20 > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev --Apple-Mail-02222581-80DB-4F61-8083-2EF33B2C52E9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=EF=BB=BFHi Andrew,

Do you mean that you c= an reduce the cost of executing the cryptography at a comparable level of se= curity? If so this will only have the effect of increasing the amount of it t= hat is required to consume the same cost.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/= Efficiency-Paradox

You m= entioned a staking hybrid in your original post.

<= /div>

Thi= s would be a change to dynamics - the economic forces at work. Staking is no= t censorship resistant


and is t= herefore what I refer to as cryptodynamically insecure.


<= /div>
As such it wouldn=E2=80=99t lik= ely be considered as a contribution to Bitcoin. It might of course be useful= in some other context.


But BIPs are proposal= s aimed at Bitcoin improvement.


Non-= staking attempts to improve energy efficiency are either proof of work in di= sguise, such as proof of memory:


or a= ttempts to repurpose =E2=80=9Cwasteful=E2=80=9D computing, such as by findin= g prime numbers, which does not imply a reduction in dedicated energy consumption.<= /span>

https:= //github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Dedicated-Cost-Principle<= /div>

Finally, waste and renewabl= e energy approaches at =E2=80=9Ccarbon=E2=80=9D (vs energy) reduction must s= till consume the same in cost as the reward. In other words, the apparent be= nefit represents a temporary market shift, with advantage to first movers. T= he market will still consume what it consumes. If the hashing energy was fre= e all reward consumption would shift to operations.

The motivation behind these attempts is naively understand= able, but based on a false premise.


The on= e thing that reduces Bitcoin energy consumption is an increase in energy cos= t relative to block reward.


e

On Mar 5, 2021, at 07:30, L= onero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&g= t; wrote:

=EF=BB=BF
Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argu= ment in regards to renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography la= yer to get the most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the a= rbitrariness of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Me= dia Wiki format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?

Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 1= 0:07 AM Devrandom <c1.devran= dom@niftybox.net> wrote:
Hi Ryan and Andrew,

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 a= t 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoi= n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

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


Just to belabor this a bit, the paper d= emonstrates that the mining market will tend to expend resources equivalent t= o miner reward.  It does not prove that mining work has to expend *ener= gy* as a primary cost.

Some might argue that en= ergy 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. =

_______________________________________________
bitcoi= n-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev<= /span>
= --Apple-Mail-02222581-80DB-4F61-8083-2EF33B2C52E9--