summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/6e/4fe861a30dbf57e79ccff16741fddf9c2a339c
blob: fe63d495832f765dd21e7c14fa59570c1fe06930 (plain)
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
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
Return-Path: <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F3AC0001
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 15:29:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35034431DE
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 15:29:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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_PASS=-0.001]
 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 cO0JIAkiW7Zf
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 15:29:52 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2a])
 by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 604E642FB1
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 15:29:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb2a.google.com with SMTP id h82so22054380ybc.13
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:29:52 -0800 (PST)
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;
 bh=JovU7cKaFwwZ9sUhFswGx2lvb192JTcYZb6XblOWIoM=;
 b=Favd0cGjtWjNTD5oVieWcjJe1F1f2AUzLqXGy63r5k57ZaCKF0EhcHenJsOV+JJbsQ
 hBsJLrSdcCSUz6yIfi9sByqeoDd10/h6aVPNaRWr3lUqOsuF0Sx0aIbpftNz155cG9YM
 rCBh4jSDir4/Zwzd1MHL9RHjLBh9/NUo/kaTEds9CegjsYzyNCuG+Cg8NS2gcUO9J6ia
 JYh4EQi8faOY7/6MQ7j/c1SPz1hZwMULKr3D7a3izs1oV9Il5DEHCSRMnpGZTxJlsCZF
 clGBd6/AhJOzYmrOFPs5a2u3LEyUF1h9UGEiHqg42XKPbF4gbN68NEq4JnpMCvmOZwp+
 LQRQ==
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;
 bh=JovU7cKaFwwZ9sUhFswGx2lvb192JTcYZb6XblOWIoM=;
 b=Vi6a47lR6PkxFdhqUewziSdpkEyj3qiQpr7jnQ3B652uDMCh9J47BH/NZxV33CBpfj
 6i5YZvemnmVmeifwmoQlOyYFsC7X9OBc8b+rPmckkfdH1sZLhWrgGq1fII/cpL088OYY
 BuuHXhpA9D1kZW5UujV0d3YCkgESik/n6//S1bmUA1pM5RDHVX2SZ8SAedkORgq/iENZ
 nu4SwFAuTuSZK4bJ4UgrQo9yymWavna5h/Y3fqi4rUQBrfLoLl4BrJ2XWoCfpUoj9Alo
 c69cqi56IeZR5x+wRSLM3eARZurDTPO0ix7OkqnzC8vPC8ec1s7p+5SwYxjhVFM6Bmfs
 2WFA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533vEZFF/aSp1a4ZvQGBS0WKrJzPyPBru78dz23SGMC6W+oyUw16
 pUfit6I80BFsCyPabYHH1lUxG7qe4VV/X70yCMuu2Xp3
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWQg8eueG9b4hSsF6a4tU54WuYkQc6/A+tTsFnTkMzL6UdVqCum8EnEIxPWTAgqwzyCxitx77jGpAaH5aVmBI=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:b206:: with SMTP id i6mr11906179ybj.499.1615476590956; 
 Thu, 11 Mar 2021 07:29:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+YkXXxUdZFYTa1c-F=-FzoQQVtV3GUmE2Okec-zRAD3xS1qAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMnpzfop8ttqjMAKoS37zpQV6WiZfi1Bn+y_e-HaepTiD4Vm1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAB0O3SVNyr_t23Y0LyT0mSaf6LONFRLYJ8qzO7rcdJFnrGccFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwkSCu=2UOEhzFBzGDHo1c=Ewqsnxp632ke3jdH1ff5WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwfS7eer5Za_ed9tCNdfOp4c3nV_X=mfXzoDxMm6BrizQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALeFGL31M5DAULLRtCwjPYHaPVqsVqREUg6WQ2-cuj23SNk=BA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXwBMG6YUAhf-2U5EV5Ep5RgG2foc9chramNFN5=AQ=-EA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALeFGL3E-rWW9aJkwre_3UF44vbNxPH2436DvaQdHoqEQ5b+eg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXyBmOootb=Kt6CH3yquYVnAZd=fJQqiF_A3p_pkB8QC3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALC81CMDQf4PqxRisQw58OL7QSFeMcQTvLMvmtOGJ_ya4-dhLg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXyP=BQ_a42J=RE7HJFcJ73atyrt4KWKUG8LbsbW=u4b5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+YkXXw1AiMqCoPk_pUOdDMfkGF_T+aURGAjGK=MTa7jtAQchg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+YkXXw1AiMqCoPk_pUOdDMfkGF_T+aURGAjGK=MTa7jtAQchg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:29:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+YkXXy1Y407UDdEjRVjzBFOCmaUKDoZkvqtXkxkmXmMdNrwBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000058d4fc05bd447449"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 16:56:20 +0000
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 <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: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 15:29:56 -0000

--00000000000058d4fc05bd447449
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084

Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference
implementation.

Best regards, Andrew

On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com=
>
wrote:

> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo:
> https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.media=
wiki
> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft
> mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I wa=
nt
> to work on.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <
> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [off-list]
>>
>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing 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 repository
>>> 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=A1bado,
>>> 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58:
>>> >
>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running
>>> on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had troub=
le
>>> finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point
>>> though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be a=
ble
>>> 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 BIP
>>> 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. That w=
ay
>>> people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies
>>> still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions=
 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 merged manually
>>> anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this.
>>> >
>>> > 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 and we already
>>> 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.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and
>>> non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit fr=
om a
>>> hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't
>>> disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
>>> >>
>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have
>>> supporting evidence for this?
>>> >>
>>> >> Keagan
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>>> 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/ Proof of
>>> Work as it normally stands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_spac=
e
>>> >>> It has rarely been done though given the technological complexity o=
f
>>> being both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatible. There are lots of
>>> benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already looked into
>>> numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the cryptogr=
aphy
>>> community attempted to propose. The actual argument you have only again=
st
>>> this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partially true. Give=
n
>>> how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocation wouldn'=
t be
>>> of much benefit given it is more optimized for CPU/ASIC specific mining=
.
>>> I'm working towards a hybrid mechanism that fixes that. BTW: The way
>>> Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography still needs updating
>>> regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the halting problem t=
he
>>> 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 complexity in
>>> regards to the hybrid cryptography I'm aiming to provide which includes=
 a
>>> polynomial time algorithm in the cryptography. More than likely the fir=
st
>>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating su=
ch
>>> complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or 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 capita=
l
>>> expenditure into mining hardware that may compute these more "useful"
>>> proofs of work."
>>> >>>
>>> >>> A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and
>>> non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit fr=
om a
>>> hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't
>>> disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrade like this is
>>> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentraliz=
ed.
>>> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken.=
 My
>>> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that preve=
nts
>>> 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 alot with
>>> distributed computing. I believe if the BTC community likes such a
>>> proposal, I would single handedly be able to build the cryptographic pr=
oof
>>> myself (though would like as many open source contributors as I can get=
 :)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Anyways just something to consider. We are in the same space in
>>> regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against staki=
ng.
>>> >>>
>>> https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-st=
op-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Best regards,  Andrew
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland <
>>> keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to
>>> be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the wor=
k
>>> was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake wh=
en
>>> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block constructi=
on
>>> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different
>>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrad=
es
>>> the security of the network in the process.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorith=
m
>>> will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining
>>> entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hard=
ware
>>> that may compute these more "useful" proofs of work. This is because an=
y
>>> 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 of the bitc=
oin
>>> 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.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> 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 tac=
kles
>>> 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, ju=
st
>>> 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 arbitrarin=
ess
>>> 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.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 cos=
t.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative
>>> externalities and that we should move to other resources.  I would argu=
e
>>> that the negative externalities will go away soon because of the move t=
o
>>> renewables, so the point is likely moot.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> >>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> >>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>

--00000000000058d4fc05bd447449
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here:=C2=A0<a h=
ref=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084">https://github.com/bitcoi=
n/bips/pull/1084</a>=C2=A0<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Hop=
ing to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference impleme=
ntation.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Best regards, A=
ndrew</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"g=
mail_attr">On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:loneroassociation@gmail.com">loneroassociation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote=
:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">Hi, here is the=
 list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: <a href=3D"https://github.com/Men=
tors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki" target=3D"_blank" =
rel=3D"noreferrer">https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/mai=
n/bip-draft.mediawiki</a><div dir=3D"auto">Can I submit a pull request on t=
he BIPs repo for this to go into draft mode? Also, I think this provides at=
 least some more insight on what I want to work on.</div><div dir=3D"auto">=
<br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Best regards, Andrew</div></div><br><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 6, 2021,=
 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@gmail.c=
om" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">loneroassociation@gmail.com</a>&gt=
; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .=
8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=
=3D"auto">[off-list]</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div>Okay. I will do so an=
d post the link here for discussion before doing a pull request on BIP&#39;=
s repo as the best way to handle=C2=A0it.<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div d=
ir=3D"auto">Best regards, Andrew</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo=
 Filipe &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com" rel=3D"noreferrer =
noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br><=
/div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-le=
ft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">As said before, you are free to create =
the BIP in your own repository<br>
and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a PR<br>
<br>
Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev<br>
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" rel=3D"norefer=
rer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat=
ion.org</a>&gt; escreveu no dia s=C3=A1bado,<br>
6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running =
on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had trouble f=
inding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point though=
 is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able to ben=
efit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in relation =
to the disinfranchisemet point.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP pul=
l request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2&#39;s draft format and any qu=
estions people have can be answered in the reqeust&#39;s comments. That way=
 people don&#39;t have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replie=
s still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions s=
ay to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since p=
eople want to see the draft beforehand and it isn&#39;t merged manually any=
ways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I&#39;m also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rath=
er form a discussion on git instead given I don&#39;t want to accidentally =
impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already esta=
blished some interest for at least a draft.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Does that seem fine?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:k=
eagan.mcclelland@gmail.com" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=
=3D"_blank">keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; &gt; A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers a=
nd non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit fro=
m a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn&#39;=
t disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have=
 supporting evidence for this?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Keagan<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev &=
lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" rel=3D"noreferr=
er noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati=
on.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; 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 mor=
e commonly used then PoST.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Pro=
of of Work as it normally stands: <a href=3D"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/=
Proof_of_space" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=
=3D"_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; 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 looked into =
numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the cryptography=
 community attempted to propose. The actual argument you have only against =
this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partially true. Given ho=
w the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocation wouldn&#39;t =
be of much benefit given it is more optimized for CPU/ASIC specific mining.=
 I&#39;m working towards a hybrid mechanism that fixes that. BTW: The way B=
itcoin currently stands in its cryptography still 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&#39;s cryptography now c=
omes down to minutes. Bitcoin is going to have to eventually radically upgr=
ade their cryptography and hashing algo in the future regardless. I want to=
 integrate some form of NP complexity in regards to the hybrid cryptography=
 I&#39;m aiming to provide which includes a polynomial time algorithm in th=
e cryptography. More than likely the first version of my BTC hard fork will=
 be coded in a way where integrating such complexity in the future only req=
uires a soft fork or minor upgrade to its chain.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; In regards to the argument, &quot;As a separate issue, proposi=
ng a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount=
 of capital expenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future capita=
l expenditure into mining hardware that may compute these more &quot;useful=
&quot; proofs of work.&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; 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 wouldn&#39;t=
 disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrade like this i=
s beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn&#39;t fully decentral=
ized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broke=
n. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that pre=
vents 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 alot with distrib=
uted computing. I believe if the BTC community likes such a proposal, I wou=
ld single handedly be able to build the cryptographic proof myself (though =
would like as many open source contributors as I can get :)<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Anyways just something to consider. We are in the same space i=
n regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against staking=
.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centraliz=
ed-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl" rel=3D"noreferre=
r noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://hackernoon.co=
m/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-ar=
ent-pi3s3yjl</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards,=C2=A0 Andrew<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer norefe=
rrer" target=3D"_blank">keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; It is important to understand that it is critical for the =
work to be &quot;useless&quot; in order for the security model to be the sa=
me. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing=
 at stake 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 di=
fferent context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually de=
grades the security of the network in the process.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing =
algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by min=
ing entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hard=
ware that may compute these more &quot;useful&quot; proofs of work. This is=
 because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and su=
bject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more ri=
sk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitco=
in network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where they c=
an be bribed by entities with a vested interest in deciding what the new &q=
uot;useful&quot; proof of work should be.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; All of these things make the Bitcoin network worse off.<br=
>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Keagan<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitco=
in-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" rel=3D"=
noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linux=
foundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&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 als=
o tackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something th=
e 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 s=
uch 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, ju=
st let me know on the preferred format?<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, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation &lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@gmail.com" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">loneroassociation@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi, this isn&#39;t about the energy efficient argu=
ment in regards to renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography l=
ayer to get the most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand th=
e arbitrariness of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use th=
e Media Wiki format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Best regards, Andrew<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom &lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:c1.devrandom@niftybox.net" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer norefer=
rer" target=3D"_blank">c1.devrandom@niftybox.net</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Hi Ryan and Andrew,<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via =
bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" re=
l=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0<a href=3D"https://www.truthco=
in.info/blog/pow-cheapest/" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer norefer=
rer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/</a><br=
>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0&quot;Nothing is Cheape=
r than Proof of Work&quot;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on | 04 Aug 2015<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstr=
ates that the mining market will tend to expend resources equivalent to min=
er reward.=C2=A0 It does not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* =
as a primary cost.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; Some might argue that energy expenditure has n=
egative externalities and that we should move to other resources.=C2=A0 I w=
ould argue that the negative externalities will go away soon because of the=
 move to renewables, so the point is likely moot.<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.or=
g" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/l=
istinfo/bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" ta=
rget=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" rel=
=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.l=
inuxfoundation.org</a><br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/=
bitcoin-dev" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"=
_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><=
br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" rel=3D"norefe=
rrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfounda=
tion.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-=
dev" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">=
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>

--00000000000058d4fc05bd447449--