Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7EF8C0001 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 23:41:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2C1140149 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 23:41:04 +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 IRKN7NtVUGff for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 23:41:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2f]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2A7B4013B for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 23:41:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2f.google.com with SMTP id c131so11996422ybf.7 for ; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 15:41:02 -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=97Ziy2tW41ZOPMJqPFzgj7k4KfEH3M6vJttpMCaxyEI=; b=toyrsE79ynDoYpU+N2eaLMZ1zTvmmexBHsvHC1P7XJTAz+uTd/v4O6RkOdJ60M0liZ BX/379rKs+1+v8jAuVH5K4xnaaA/P/24lNXYagAYGFerMmxKm+/o3NTyFt3bI3ulFhMW Z01Zze5h6JW+qUjqsS3J94912kPxmWjF/cJpGR2p9FyfiA9fkGhOaTqWyFkmPEqTmnqX q0fe7sRHNanmtkh2Me59ixZxbg+DXAM6Q+QHU3s6R3qnytU5Kg4zw/89NRLwtiQiDEz9 dKMTxlCYlJwN9BDJOeIWOYzyuSL5xh/LPP0MpHU+uUysqgaap7xXrJd3Yx+qjRqZiy6d j/9w== 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=97Ziy2tW41ZOPMJqPFzgj7k4KfEH3M6vJttpMCaxyEI=; b=lxz+mFRlK+2yFQBy496He3yL74SmepGmxCbvUIbCsTMOig3G+14bXXuoIJic8X5X2f w7oQi66mHXj94EC5knqzz29IWChybmKr4XN9TGbD7v7Rn+0VbkVh+V5HKkNJn21b/caM ckoDAN8t+neaoEdsqs9DRp07esVTQ9HfMYKCePUZwFTtpCAfT9zRw7/PyhnMXxUBPtFC NO8tWwCsTKcvIBF4cIJs1BSnBOpIoe671Wq5nvXqd9xXhFDALsTSC5ookCRj/abUL4Fk ijXueIk8afaQfkV8Y/TxPxVkYu8MGFjtJMzasFEUESgf//QN22SSSZ+puHkGUmTmIGVI P/SA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531muOQHyIsjBPOQvK/M8nWwJGxMK3pjJb3aJ3clEOQ1At2QmcmD lTPe/h7wgYfTHeMNgli16SJpnjO/WHwWLN9417280ERl X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxIa0DQ5b/vzUbBTsrWHBZRiopO8mqtgvBFDbp5UXnzKJYEL1PCC0yp2XYKgFEo7Da0xMJKb4xBJoJjEFXGq+0= X-Received: by 2002:a25:d843:: with SMTP id p64mr35236196ybg.339.1615246861491; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 15:41:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Lonero Foundation Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:40:50 -0500 Message-ID: To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006764e105bd0ef725" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 09 Mar 2021 08:25:34 +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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 23:41:04 -0000 --0000000000006764e105bd0ef725 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawi= ki 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 want to work on. Best regards, Andrew On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation 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 > 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 >> 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 troubl= e >> 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 ab= le >> 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 pul= l >> 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 wa= y >> 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 fro= m 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_space >> >>> It has rarely been done though given the technological complexity 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 cryptogra= phy >> community attempted to propose. The actual argument you have only agains= t >> this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partially true. Given >> 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 th= e >> 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 firs= t >> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating suc= h >> complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or minor upgrade to i= ts >> 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 capital >> 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 fro= m 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 decentralize= d. >> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. = My >> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that preven= ts >> 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 pro= of >> 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 stakin= g. >> >>> >> https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-sto= p-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 b= e >> "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work wa= s >> useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when >> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block constructio= n >> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different >> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrade= s >> the security of the network in the process. >> >>>> >> >>>> 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 capital expenditure into mining hardw= are >> 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 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 >> "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 tack= les >> 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 s= uch >> as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the v= ery >> least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does a= t >> least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, jus= t >> 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 arbitrarine= ss >> 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 >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 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 >> > --0000000000006764e105bd0ef725 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: = https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bi= p-draft.mediawiki
Can I submit a pull request on the B= IPs repo for this to go into draft mode? Also, I think this provides at lea= st some more insight on what I want to work on.

=
Best regards, Andrew

On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:4= 2 AM Lonero Foundation <l= oneroassociation@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=C2=A0it.<= div dir=3D"auto">
Best regards, Andrew

On S= at, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail.c= om> wrote:
As said before, y= ou 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 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.
>
> 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's draft format and any qu= estions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way= people don'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't merged manually any= ways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this.
>
> I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rath= er 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 esta= blished 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 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'= 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 &= lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&= gt; 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 mor= e 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_of_space
>>> 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'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 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'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'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.
>>>
>>> In regards to the argument, "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 "useful= " 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 wouldn'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 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 :)
>>>
>>> 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= .
>>> https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-= you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yj= l
>>>
>>> Best regards,=C2=A0 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 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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 "useful" 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" 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 bitco= in-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 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.linuxfounda= tion.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
>>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0"Nothing is Cheape= r than Proof of Work"
>>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on | 04 Aug 2015
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf= oundation.org
>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat= ion.org
>>> htt= ps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lis= ts.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000006764e105bd0ef725--