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
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F6EC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7E4405CC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=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 NhvSIQnpAe-m
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.132])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDCC7405BC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:27 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:21 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1621323984;
bh=s4FNkJfQY02iDv55FH6ukBUiUdrgBWDshF5tVpWj6zE=;
h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=ryDR+nF0J4uuEAZXNONhJulERzgKvJRDHkog0QIflzWyxXbycMvBl19I/DNh4HNYn
OnaO8u5xpu28kRJODVaKs//icBPWI5fELHVo3MgPqVM/c7GmciRoMlnxyePB5FiM7H
HVR7SXSZGxIfYLpW3WgkDT9nheixilZFIkvSFmk0=
To: Anton Ragin <anton@etc-group.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <XCHeoYbRg9a2N-IDktDfrJrB-41w3bDRE95UI6MLiRAf48TzRGIN53VEpZqL3atnwGi_g5D3wefYlFH7qrm5ZjPGX3MwvzlaTJKdKN_tCzE=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPyV_jDsScGQo4_DB8y7-4ZFGyEqM_Sk3YUUteK6HwPRuxOAvQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d35dee03-2d19-e80a-c577-2151938f9203@web.de>
<202105170258.13233.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAPyV_jDsScGQo4_DB8y7-4ZFGyEqM_Sk3YUUteK6HwPRuxOAvQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Force to do nothing for first 9 minutes
to save 90% of mining energy
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 07:46:30 -0000
Good morning Anton,
> >> 4. My counter-proposal to the community to address energy consumption
> >> problems would be *to encourage users to allow only 'green miners' pro=
cess>> their transaction.* In particular:
> >>...
> >> (b) Should there be some non-profit organization(s) certifying green m=
iners
> >> and giving them cryptographic certificates of conformity (either usage=
of
> >> green energy or purchase of offsets), users could encrypt their
> >> transactions and submit to mempool in such a format that *only green m=
iners>> would be able to decrypt and process them*.
>
> >Hello centralisation. Might as well just have someone sign miner keys, a=
nd get
> >rid of PoW entirely...
> >No, it is not centralization -=C2=A0
>
> No, it is not centralization, as:
>
> (a) different miners could use different standards / certifications for '=
green' status, there are many already;
> (b) it does not affect stability of the network in a material way, rather=
creates small (12.5% of revenue max) incentive to move to green sources of=
energy (or buy carbon credits) and get certified - miners who would choose=
to run dirty energy will still be able to do so.
> and
>
> (c) nothing is being proposed beyond=C2=A0what is already possible - Antp=
ool can go green today, and solicit users to send them signed transactions =
directly instead of adding them to a public mempool, under the pretext that=
it would make the transfer 'greener'. What is being proposed is some commu=
nity effort to standardize=C2=A0& promote this approach, because if we mana=
ge to make Bitcoin green(er) - we will remove what many commentators=C2=
=A0see as the last barrier / biggest risk to even wider Bitcoin adoption.
The point of avoiding centralization is to avoid authorities --- who can en=
d up being bribeable or hackable single points-of-failure, and which would =
potentially be able to kill Bitcoin as a whole from a single attack point.
Adding an authority which filters miners works directly against this goal, =
regardless of however you define "centralization" --- centralization is not=
the root issue here, the authority *is*.
One can observe that "more renewable" energy sources will, economically, be=
cheaper (in the long run) anyway, and you do not have to add anything to g=
o towards "more green" energy resources.
After all, a "non-renewable" resource is simply a resource that has a lower=
supply (it cannot be renewed) than a "more renewable" energy source.
There is only so much energy that is stored in coal and oil on Earth, but t=
he sun has a much larger total mass than Earth itself, thus it is a "more r=
enewable" energy resource than coal and oil.
Economically, this implies that "greener" energy resources will be cheaper =
in the long run, simply by price being a function of supply.
In short: trust the invisible hand.
We already know that lots of miners already operate in places where energy =
prices have bottomed due to oversupply due to technological improvements in=
capturing energy that used to be dissipated as waste heat.
What is needed is to spread this knowledge to others, not mess with the des=
ign of Bitcoin at a fundamental level and risk introducing unexpected side =
effects (bugs).
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
