Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55971C0001 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:59:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372316F4A4 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:59:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 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 gJcw67oRNbKQ for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:58:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb35.google.com (mail-yb1-xb35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b35]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5ABEB6F49F for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2021 02:58:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb35.google.com with SMTP id l8so31712128ybe.12 for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 19:58:58 -0700 (PDT) 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 :cc; bh=7o+gONtTP7hCG5xgTI4uoYerFPCP6GhfhhGD23tUSN8=; b=BltDH1xg53u9ga2kfrM9O5pi+5lJk0Omn0LjwRyz+SbnWi9N2A+6ErjXAKGqJTCR28 27nVrpQHxyelmVKCd75/4lxN/0lU0f+Ia0zODt6awYrh3oBvhzimReZER010zA8z+Ulm Gbooq9PVLnOwXsAiCKJva4htltC3uZQPzGwMNI2tMWzooOya8rNAaFkxiB9NmJqfEVMy srBK6wl79AGBver0y37mWEfknFqVHiC72Dtyn80XrjW2ui7nl6c2jfBcqPE83phsc/7l qrSn8FDADlHNg3CIO4z94wGT2x1oDfhGddo1Y+Iidp/TwpHuNoI8ik+3RW61E6LGpA50 DDnA== 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:cc; bh=7o+gONtTP7hCG5xgTI4uoYerFPCP6GhfhhGD23tUSN8=; b=kBMWQoBWxNTdPp2d4pKR3FqkVBi8iiZsJZJlDyjXknH6T13HUhm4UWCHqFKtljPPRx N+PJKXpNG0eDAMugqX+63VmAiiTx/bH/uSsWjtPVR/3E3Bk1pIS7x88ipOrkWScEd+6D LlMtNUSigz8iGUqHNHL570EJ/iRFhzEk7G/cywHeNuxfJG049UxI7Ok7Lsauk1FSF5pB vc69y12VgHVcEKdvRH5VKCP4mpRdQRQ9NWsVhcqBxSocqH77cjFWT0eGIuyu74ZhrzOn bbnqI/sR6mImxObwTMIH2XBYbwFCke67vfGuaKWNXy1+K8uZmbrjcgIv9J8GyWUJqiOJ 2sdg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530to/v/B94Zs9AqWkB1CZhHYHnMCVeeSUuy+Aswr+9g3IjHxUi8 jhsFZq+GL8v3DUtaMgYgzLvXKSU/o5hGWrP521Y= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxbhXPCwSACEyryhrlStGKw+tuEHtg+CawmLwzlX7HgwBx6vCanWHwE78R5cxAuYszteapxwa15TWj/K5P0D1o= X-Received: by 2002:a25:b206:: with SMTP id i6mr32955709ybj.499.1615777137286; Sun, 14 Mar 2021 19:58:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Lonero Foundation Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 22:58:45 -0400 Message-ID: To: Eric Martindale Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004ddf5a05bd8a6ea3" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:22:59 +0000 Cc: Devrandom , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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, 15 Mar 2021 02:59:00 -0000 --0000000000004ddf5a05bd8a6ea3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Actually disregard my last email, I realize you were replying to somebody else instead of me. Please for proposals not related to my BIP, such as a form of "luck chance lottery", post in a different discussion thread as to not draw confusion. Best regards, Andrew On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:51 PM Lonero Foundation < loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: > I also want to emphasize that Bitcoin's energy consumption is growing at > an exponential rate because of complexity. That in itself is a good thing > security-wise. However, there are limitations to the cryptography it is > using and the efficiency it is going about mining the way it is currently > done. > > Bitcoin can have this massive carbon footprint all become meaningless if > there is better math. So far we already outpaced many of the the more > traditional forms of cryptographic protocols Bitcoin is currently using, > including both for its mining and key validation. The hardware specificness > is also too limited. > > My proposal doesn't redesign the way Bitcoin is structured or its system, > rather it focuses on improvement or replacing what is outdated, and making > it more resistant to centralization, forced monopolization or an attack. > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:32 PM Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, just to clarify this isn't a trade-off on security. Infact, my >> proposal actually increases the level of security that Bitcoin currently >> has. There is both an efficiency and cryptography aspect to this proposal. >> I talked about the higher levels of security a bit in my BIP, and have >> talked to a few about energy consumption. >> >> Outside of consumption of energy however, is the fact that BTC can be >> more adaptable towards a major range of hardware without disenfranchising >> others or other major trade-offs. There is no need for BTC to specifically >> be tailored towards ASICs if the same level of proof of work can be done >> from other hardware sources at similar costs. The technology and level of >> cryptography between now and when Satoshi started BTC development 14 years >> ago is also fastly different. BTC went from you can mine lots of Bitcoin by >> literally downloading the whitepaper, to USB miners, to ASICs to now whole >> entire mining centers. >> >> This is because of complexity, but that complexity in the near future can >> be entirely meaningless if it is vulnerable to some of the things many >> cryptography experts are worried about. Keep in mind this is in draft mode, >> but over time as further implementation is done, alot of the community >> including yourself might start being impressed by the more and more >> tangible results. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:02 PM Eric Martindale >> wrote: >> >>> Bitcoin's security is derived from the energy consumption of mining, so >>> reducing the overall expenditure would be an objective decrease in >>> resilience. As a miner, your efficiency at converting energy into >>> hashpower is the driving factor in your profitability, so this and any >>> other future attempts to decrease the cost of attacking Bitcoin receives a >>> hard NACK from me. >>> >>> If you're concerned about missing out on the subsidy or fee revenue, >>> grab any number of the sub-500mSAT USB miners and get access to cheap power. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Eric Martindale, relentless maker. >>> Founder & CEO, Fabric, Inc. >>> +1 (919) 374-2020 >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via >>> bitcoin-dev wrote: >>> >>>> Good Afternoon, >>>> >>>> It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current >>>> cost of mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected >>>> because it is considered censorship and Bitcoin has a consensus to allow >>>> anyone to mine but, since mining requires specific hardware and energy >>>> requirements it is already a form of censorship where most on the planet >>>> except for the top 6% I am guessing here, cannot afford to mine. Without >>>> affecting the current algorithm, I have previously begun to explore the >>>> process by which mining can be turned into a lottery with only authorized >>>> payto addresses able to mine valid blocks, since transaction fees and block >>>> rewards exist to pay the miner. It would be better even if the algorithms >>>> are improved if there are some ways that only a subset of miners can >>>> produce valid blocks for any given period, say for 12 months with four >>>> groups starting three months apart to transition, and maybe limit mining to >>>> 50 people per continent to produce valid blocks at any one time. Possibly >>>> this requires a consortium to oversee the lottery but it is something >>>> Bitcoin can handle themselves, and would do better to handle than to wait >>>> for government intervention as we have seen previously in China where power >>>> was too cheap Bitcoin was banned entirely. >>>> >>>> KING JAMES HRMH >>>> Great British Empire >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> The Australian >>>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) >>>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire >>>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson >>>> Wills >>>> >>>> et al. >>>> >>>> >>>> Willtech >>>> www.willtech.com.au >>>> www.go-overt.com >>>> and other projects >>>> >>>> earn.com/willtech >>>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson >>>> >>>> >>>> m. 0487135719 >>>> f. +61261470192 >>>> >>>> >>>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this >>>> email if misdelivered. >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* bitcoin-dev on >>>> behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM >>>> *To:* Devrandom >>>> *Cc:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion < >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST >>>> Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining >>>> >>>> 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 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, just >>>> 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 arbitrariness >>>> 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 >>>> >>> --0000000000004ddf5a05bd8a6ea3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Actually disregard my last email, I realize you were repl= ying to somebody else instead of me. Please for proposals not related to my= BIP, such as a form of "luck chance lottery", post in a differen= t discussion thread as to not draw confusion.

Best regards, Andrew

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:51 PM Lo= nero Foundation <loneroas= sociation@gmail.com> wrote:
=
I also want to emphasize that Bitcoin's energy consum= ption is growing at an exponential rate because of complexity. That in itse= lf is a good thing security-wise. However, there are limitations to the cry= ptography it is using and the efficiency it is going about mining the way i= t is currently done.=C2=A0

Bit= coin can have this massive carbon footprint all become meaningless if there= is better math. So far we already outpaced many of the the more traditiona= l forms of cryptographic protocols Bitcoin is currently using, including bo= th for its mining and key validation. The hardware specificness is also too= limited.

My proposal do= esn't redesign the way Bitcoin is structured or its system, rather it f= ocuses on improvement or replacing what is outdated, and making it more res= istant to centralization, forced monopolization or an attack.
On Sun, = Mar 14, 2021, 10:32 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, just to clarify this isn't a trade-off o= n security. Infact, my proposal actually increases the level of security th= at Bitcoin currently has. There is both an efficiency and cryptography aspe= ct to this proposal. I talked about the higher levels of security a bit in = my BIP, and have talked to a few about energy consumption.=C2=A0

Outside of consumption of energy however= , is the fact that BTC can be more adaptable towards a major range of hardw= are without disenfranchising others or other major trade-offs. There is no = need for BTC to specifically be tailored towards ASICs if the same level of= proof of work can be done from other hardware sources at similar costs. Th= e technology and level of cryptography between now and when Satoshi started= BTC development 14 years ago is also fastly different. BTC went from you c= an mine lots of Bitcoin by literally downloading the whitepaper, to USB min= ers, to ASICs to now whole entire mining centers.=C2=A0

This is because of complexity, but that com= plexity in the near future can be entirely meaningless if it is vulnerable = to some of the things many cryptography experts are worried about. Keep in = mind this is in draft mode, but over time as further implementation is done= , alot of the community including yourself might start being impressed by t= he more and more tangible results.

Best regards, Andrew

<= div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:02 PM Eric Ma= rtindale <eric@ericmartindale.com<= /a>> wrote:


On Sun, Mar 14, 2021= at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxf= oundation.org> wrote:
Good Afternoon,

It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current cost o= f mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected because it i= s considered censorship and Bitcoin has a consensus to allow anyone to mine= but, since mining requires specific hardware and energy requirements it is already a form of censorship where = most on the planet except for the top 6% I am guessing here, cannot afford = to mine. Without affecting the current algorithm, I have previously begun t= o explore the process by which mining can be turned into a lottery with only authorized payto addresses able to = mine valid blocks, since transaction fees and block rewards exist to pay th= e miner. It would be better even if the algorithms are improved if there ar= e some ways that only a subset of miners can produce valid blocks for any given period, say for 12 months wi= th four groups starting three months apart to transition, and maybe limit m= ining to 50 people per continent to produce valid blocks at any one time. P= ossibly this requires a consortium to oversee the lottery but it is something Bitcoin can handle themselves, = and would do better to handle than to wait for government intervention as w= e have seen previously in China where power was too cheap Bitcoin was banne= d entirely.

KING JAMES HRMH
Great British Empire

Regards,
The Australian
LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
MR. Damian A. James Williamson
Wills

et al.

=C2=A0
Willtech
and other projects
=C2=A0


m. 0487135719
f. +61261470192


This email does not con= stitute a general advice. Please disregard this email if misdelivered.
From: bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-bounces@list= s.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-de= v <bitcoi= n-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM
To: Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>= ;
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST = Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining
=C2=A0
Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate th= at my cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also t= ackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the B= TC 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 usefu= l 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 cryptogra= phy 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 <loneroassociation@gmail.com<= /a>> 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 arbit= rariness 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

Hi Ryan and Andrew,


=C2=A0 https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 on | 04 Aug 2015


Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining mar= ket will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner 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 negative externalities an= d that we should move to other resources.=C2=A0 I would argue that the nega= tive externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so = the point is likely moot.=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@= lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin= -dev
--0000000000004ddf5a05bd8a6ea3--