path: root/3c/272a5dacd663248597e5a845bfa9c18677cb70

Return-Path: <email@yancy.lol>
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 456BAC0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:58:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20324605EB
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:58:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5
 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id eVXxBSbdnOVh
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 01:04:11 by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mslow2.mail.gandi.net (mslow2.mail.gandi.net [217.70.178.242])
 by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 73FDD605E7
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (unknown [217.70.183.200])
 by mslow2.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFD383B0EAC
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 22:37:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Originating-IP: 10.200.201.51
Received: from sogo1.sd4.0x35.net (sogo1.sd4.0x35.net [10.200.201.51])
 (Authenticated sender: email@yancy.lol)
 by relay7-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ED6C820002;
 Fri, 12 Mar 2021 22:37:23 +0000 (UTC)
From: "email@yancy.lol" <email@yancy.lol>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YkXXz9aHfZtt-it_8w4ovF=-QaZ4_9vwDS0Kz36qhHwVDC5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="----=_=-_OpenGroupware_org_NGMime-15717-1615588643.600866-100------"
X-Forward: 127.0.0.1
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:37:23 +0100
To: "Lonero Foundation" <loneroassociation@gmail.com>,
 "Bitcoin Protocol Discussion" <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3d65-604bed00-17d-6093c680@171273340>
User-Agent: SOGoMail 5.0.1
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 22:53:20 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev]
 =?utf-8?q?BIP_Proposal=3A_Consensus_=28hard_fork=29?=
 =?utf-8?q?_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 <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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:58:39 -0000

------=_=-_OpenGroupware_org_NGMime-15717-1615588643.600866-100------
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 13815


I think Andrew himself is an algo.=C2=A0 The crypto training set must n=
ot be very good.

Cheers,
-Yancy

On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev =
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=C2=A0Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validat=
ion in relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those=
 keys. I might rephrase it.=C2=A0=C2=A0In regards to technical merit, t=
he main purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I get as=
signed a BIP draft #, I am willing to follow it up with many preprints =
or publications to go in the references implementation section and star=
t dev work before upgrading to final status.=C2=A0This will take about =
400 hours of my time, but is something I am personally looking into dev=
eloping as a hard fork.=C2=A0Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it =
is assigned a number to references I do at the very least hope to descr=
ibe various parts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure=
 I am hoping for.=C2=A0Best regards, Andrew=C2=A0On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, =
10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:secp236k1 isn't a hashing a=
lgo.=C2=A0 =C2=A0your BIP needs about 10 more pages
and some degree of technical merit.

i suggest you start here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof=5Fof=5Fburn
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D225690.0

proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.=C2=A0 =C2=A0i alw=
ays
suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
equivalent.=C2=A0 =C2=A0you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows=
 aged,
burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.

- erik

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: https://github.com/bi=
tcoin/bips/pull/1084
>
> Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/referenc=
e implementation.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gma=
il.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: https://git=
hub.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki
>> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into dra=
ft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what=
 I want to work on.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@g=
mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [off-list]
>>>
>>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doi=
ng a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail=
.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As said before, you are free to create the BIP in your own reposit=
ory
>>>> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a =
PR
>>>>
>>>> Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> escreveu no dia s=C3=A1bad=
o,
>>>> 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58:
>>>> >
>>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes ru=
nning on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had=
 trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. Th=
e point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would st=
ill be able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as=
 this was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point.
>>>> >
>>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a B=
IP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and =
any questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. Th=
at way people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but =
replies still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the inst=
ructions say to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done=
 that. Since people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merge=
d manually anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but ra=
ther form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentall=
y impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we alread=
y established some interest for at least a draft.
>>>> >
>>>> > Does that seem fine?
>>>> >
>>>> > Best regards, Andrew
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclellan=
d@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers a=
nd non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit=
 from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wou=
ldn't disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you h=
ave supporting evidence for this?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Keagan
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-de=
v <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time hybrid which is=
 much different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusion as PoC is=
 more commonly used then PoST.
>>>> >>> There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Pro=
of of Work as it normally stands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof=5F=
of=5Fspace
>>>> >>> It has rarely been done though given the technological complex=
ity of being both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatible. There are =
lots of benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already look=
ed into numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the =
cryptography community attempted to propose. The actual argument you ha=
ve only against this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only part=
ially true. Given how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory =
allocation wouldn't be of much benefit given it is more optimized for C=
PU/ASIC specific mining. I'm working towards a hybrid mechanism that fi=
xes that. BTW: The way Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography sti=
ll needs updating regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the=
 halting problem the traditional rule of millions of years to break all=
 of Bitcoin's cryptography now comes down to minutes. Bitcoin is going =
to have to eventually radically upgrade their cryptography and hashing =
algo in the future regardless. I want to integrate some form of NP comp=
lexity in regards to the hybrid cryptography I'm aiming to provide whic=
h includes a polynomial time algorithm in the cryptography. More than l=
ikely the first version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way wher=
e integrating such complexity in the future only requires a soft fork o=
r minor upgrade to its chain.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> In regards to the argument, "As a separate issue, proposing a =
hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount =
of capital expenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future cap=
ital expenditure into mining hardware that may compute these more "usef=
ul" proofs of work."
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers an=
d non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit =
from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner woul=
dn't disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrade like this i=
s beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentral=
ized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely b=
roken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way =
that prevents such an event from happening in the future, if it was to =
ever happen. I have various research in regards to this area and work a=
lot with distributed computing. I believe if the BTC community likes su=
ch a proposal, I would single handedly be able to build the cryptograph=
ic proof myself (though would like as many open source contributors as =
I can get :)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Anyways just something to consider. We are in the same space i=
n regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against sta=
king.
>>>> >>> https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocu=
rrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Best regards,=C2=A0 Andrew
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mccle=
lland@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the wor=
k to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If th=
e work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at s=
take when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block =
construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a=
 different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actu=
ally degrades the security of the network in the process.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing alg=
orithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mi=
ning entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining=
 hardware that may compute these more "useful" proofs of work. This is =
because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and=
 subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even =
more risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that o=
f the bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a positi=
on where they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest in decid=
ing what the new "useful" proof of work should be.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> All of these things make the Bitcoin network worse off.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Keagan
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-=
dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> 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 simpl=
icity, I do want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues i=
n regards to this manner and can provide useful insight to the communit=
y. If things such as bigger block height have been proposed as hard for=
ks, 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 <loneroassoc=
iation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regar=
ds to renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to g=
et the most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arb=
itrariness 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@nifty=
box.net> 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:
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/=

>>>> >>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0"Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work=
"
>>>> >>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on | 04 Aug 2015
>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that th=
e mining market will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner rewar=
d.=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 exte=
rnalities and that we should move to other resources.=C2=A0 I would arg=
ue that the negative externalities will go away soon because of the mov=
e to renewables, so the point is likely moot.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F
>>>> >>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> >>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> >>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d=
ev
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F
>>>> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev=

>>>> >
>>>> > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F
>>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=

> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


=C2=A0

------=_=-_OpenGroupware_org_NGMime-15717-1615588643.600866-100------
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 20868

<html>I think Andrew himself is an algo.&nbsp; The crypto training set =
must not be very good.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />-Yancy<br /><br />On Fri=
day, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev &lt;bi=
tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:<br />&nbsp;<blockquote t=
ype=3D"cite" cite=3D"CA+YkXXz9aHfZtt-it=5F8w4ovF=3D-QaZ4=5F9vwDS0Kz36qh=
HwVDC5Q@mail.gmail.com"><div dir=3D"auto">Hi, I awkwardly phrased that =
part, I was referring to key validation in relation to that section as =
well as the hashing related to those keys. I might rephrase it.&nbsp;<d=
iv dir=3D"auto">&nbsp;</div><div dir=3D"auto">In regards to technical m=
erit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I=
 get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to follow it up with many pre=
prints or publications to go in the references implementation section a=
nd start dev work before upgrading to final status.</div><div dir=3D"au=
to">&nbsp;</div><div dir=3D"auto">This will take about 400 hours of my =
time, but is something I am personally looking into developing as a har=
d fork.</div><div dir=3D"auto">&nbsp;</div><div dir=3D"auto">Keep in mi=
nd this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do=
 at the very least hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic =
proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.</div><div dir=3D"auto=
">&nbsp;</div><div dir=3D"auto">Best regards, Andrew</div></div>&nbsp;<=
div class=3D"gmail=5Fquote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail=5Fattr">On =
Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:erik@q3=
2.com">erik@q32.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=5Fqu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left=
:1ex">secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.&nbsp; &nbsp;your BIP needs about =
10 more pages<br />and some degree of technical merit.<br /><br />i sug=
gest you start here:<br /><br /><a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=
=3D"=5Fblank" href=3D"https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof=5Fof=5Fburn">htt=
ps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof=5Fof=5Fburn</a><br /><a rel=3D"noreferrer=
 noreferrer" target=3D"=5Fblank" href=3D"https://bitcointalk.org/index.=
php?topic=3D225690.0">https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D225690.=
0</a><br /><br />proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.&=
nbsp; &nbsp;i always<br />suspected that, if designed correctly, it cou=
ld be a proven<br />equivalent.&nbsp; &nbsp;you could spin up a fork of=
 bitcoin that allows aged,<br />burned, coins instead of POW that would=
 probably work just fine.<br /><br />- erik<br /><br />On Thu, Mar 11, =
2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev<br />&lt;<a target=3D=
"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br />=
&gt;<br />&gt; Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: <a rel=3D=
"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"=5Fblank" href=3D"https://github.com/=
bitcoin/bips/pull/1084">https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084</a><b=
r />&gt;<br />&gt; Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to dev=
elopment/reference implementation.<br />&gt;<br />&gt; Best regards, An=
drew<br />&gt;<br />&gt; On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation=
 &lt;<a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:loneroass=
ociation@gmail.com">loneroassociation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br />&gt=
;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt; Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own =
repo: <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"=5Fblank" href=3D"http=
s://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawi=
ki">https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft=
.mediawiki</a><br />&gt;&gt; Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs re=
po for this to go into draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least=
 some more insight on what I want to work on.<br />&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&g=
t; Best regards, Andrew<br />&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt; On Sat, Mar 6, 2021=
, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferr=
er" href=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@gmail.com">loneroassociation@gmail=
.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; [off-list]<br /=
>&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; Okay. I will do so and post the link he=
re for discussion before doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best=
 way to handle it.<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards, An=
drew<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt; On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM =
Ricardo Filipe &lt;<a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"ma=
ilto:ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com">ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As said before, you are f=
ree to create the BIP in your own repository<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; and =
bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a PR<br />&=
gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev=
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" hr=
ef=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; escreveu no dia s=C3=A1bado,<br />&gt;&gt;&g=
t;&gt; 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br />&gt;&=
gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage o=
f nodes running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for m=
ining. Had trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain o=
f salt. The point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardwar=
e would still be able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am pro=
posing, as this was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point.<br />&g=
t;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; That said, I think the b=
est way to move forward is to submit a BIP pull request for a draft via=
 GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any questions people have can b=
e answered in the reqeust's comments. That way people don't have to get=
 emails everytime there is a reply, but replies still get seen as oppos=
ed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bitcoin-d=
ev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since people want to see=
 the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually anyways, I think it =
is the easiest way to handle this.<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br />&gt;=
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin=
-dev but rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to =
accidentally impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list an=
d we already established some interest for at least a draft.<br />&gt;&=
gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Does that seem fine?<br />&=
gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; Best regards, Andrew<br=
 />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021=
, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland &lt;<a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferre=
r" href=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com">keagan.mcclelland@gmail.=
com</a>&gt; wrote:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=
 &gt;&gt; &gt; A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS serv=
ers and non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would be=
nefit from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manne=
r wouldn't disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.<=
br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt; My instin=
cts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have supporting ev=
idence for this?<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &=
gt;&gt; Keagan<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt=
;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev =
&lt;<a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&=
gt; wrote:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt=
;&gt;&gt; Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time hybrid which i=
s much different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusion as PoC i=
s more commonly used then PoST.<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Ther=
e is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Proof of Work as=
 it normally stands: <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"=5Fblan=
k" href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof=5Fof=5Fspace">https://en=
.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof=5Fof=5Fspace</a><br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&g=
t;&gt; It has rarely been done though given the technological complexit=
y of being both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatible. There are lo=
ts of benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already looked=
 into numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the cr=
yptography community attempted to propose. The actual argument you have=
 only against this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partia=
lly true. Given how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory al=
location wouldn't be of much benefit given it is more optimized for CPU=
/ASIC specific mining. I'm working towards a hybrid mechanism that fixe=
s that. BTW: The way Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography still=
 needs updating regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the h=
alting problem the traditional rule of millions of years to break all o=
f Bitcoin's cryptography now comes down to minutes. Bitcoin is going to=
 have to eventually radically upgrade their cryptography and hashing al=
go in the future regardless. I want to integrate some form of NP comple=
xity in regards to the hybrid cryptography I'm aiming to provide which =
includes a polynomial time algorithm in the cryptography. More than lik=
ely the first version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where =
integrating such complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or =
minor upgrade to its chain.<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt=
;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; In regards to the argument, "As a separate i=
ssue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate th=
e enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities and disince=
ntivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may comput=
e these more "useful" proofs of work."<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&g=
t;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; A large portion of BTC is already=
 mined through AWS servers and non-asic specific hardware anyways. A ma=
jority of them would benefit from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it =
is hybrid in that manner wouldn't disenfranchise currently optimized mi=
ning entities as well.<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;=
&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrad=
e like this is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fu=
lly decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from bei=
ng entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptogra=
phy in a way that prevents such an event from happening in the future, =
if it was to ever happen. I have various research in regards to this ar=
ea and work alot with distributed computing. I believe if the BTC commu=
nity likes such a proposal, I would single handedly be able to build th=
e cryptographic proof myself (though would like as many open source con=
tributors as I can get :)<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&=
gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Anyways just something to consider. We are in =
the same space in regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argu=
ment against staking.<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <a rel=3D"nore=
ferrer noreferrer" target=3D"=5Fblank" href=3D"https://hackernoon.com/e=
thereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-a=
rent-pi3s3yjl">https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cr=
yptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl</a><br />&gt;&gt;&=
gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards,&n=
bsp; Andrew<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &g=
t;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland &lt;<a targ=
et=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gma=
il.com">keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; It is importa=
nt to understand that it is critical for the work to be "useless" in or=
der for the security model to be the same. If the work was useful it pr=
ovides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitting a =
proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction will be le=
ssened by the fact that the work was useful in a different context and =
therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades the secur=
ity of the network in the process.<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&g=
t;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As a separate issue, proposin=
g a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amo=
unt of capital expenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future=
 capital expenditure into mining hardware that may compute these more "=
useful" proofs of work. This is because any change in the POW algorithm=
 will be considered unstable and subject to change in the future. This =
puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no entity is tyi=
ng their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at large. It also=
 puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed by entities=
 with a vested interest in deciding what the new "useful" proof of work=
 should be.<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; All of these things make the Bitcoin network worse o=
ff.<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&g=
t;&gt;&gt; Keagan<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&=
gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundati=
on via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D=
"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf=
oundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=
<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; 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-Completene=
ss 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 becaus=
e it tackles lots of the issues in regards to this manner and can provi=
de useful insight to the community. If things such as bigger block heig=
ht have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very least an upgrad=
e regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at least warran=
t some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just let me kn=
ow on the preferred format?<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<=
br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br />&g=
t;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&=
gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a target=3D=
"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@gmail.co=
m">loneroassociation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt=
;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi=
, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to renewabl=
es or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the most ou=
t 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 fo=
rmat on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=
 &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
; Best regards, Andrew<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<b=
r />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:0=
7 AM Devrandom &lt;<a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"ma=
ilto:c1.devrandom@niftybox.net">c1.devrandom@niftybox.net</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&=
gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi Ryan and Andrew,<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&=
gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev =
&lt;<a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-de=
v@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&=
gt; wrote:<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />=
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=
 &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp;<a rel=3D"noreferrer nore=
ferrer" target=3D"=5Fblank" href=3D"https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow=
-cheapest/">https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/</a><br />&gt;=
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;"Nothi=
ng is Cheaper than Proof of Work"<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;on | 04 Aug 2015<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;=
&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt=
;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Ju=
st to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining market=
 will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.&nbsp; It doe=
s not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.<=
br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt=
; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Some might argue that energy expenditure=
 has negative externalities and that we should move to other resources.=
&nbsp; I would argue that the negative externalities will go away soon =
because of the move to renewables, so the point is likely moot.<br />&g=
t;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&=
gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mai=
ling list<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a target=3D"=5Fbl=
ank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundatio=
n.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; =
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"=5Fblan=
k" href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-d=
ev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><=
br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; =5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F<br /=
>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br />&gt;&gt;&g=
t;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"m=
ailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfou=
ndation.org</a><br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer=
 noreferrer" target=3D"=5Fblank" href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.=
org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mai=
lman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;<br />&gt;&gt;&=
gt;&gt; &gt; =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br />&gt;=
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; <a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mai=
lto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfound=
ation.org</a><br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferre=
r" target=3D"=5Fblank" href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailma=
n/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listi=
nfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br />&gt;<br />&gt; =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=
=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F<br />&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list=
<br />&gt; <a target=3D"=5Fblank" rel=3D"noreferrer" href=3D"mailto:bit=
coin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg</a><br />&gt; <a rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"=5Fblank" h=
ref=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev">=
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a></blo=
ckquote></div></blockquote><br /><br /><br />&nbsp;</html>

------=_=-_OpenGroupware_org_NGMime-15717-1615588643.600866-100--------