0ad4b653db324f1fd8bdff26ff7a431e217212
1 Return-Path: <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> 2 Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) 3 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CC7C0001 4 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 5 Fri, 5 Mar 2021 21:11:17 +0000 (UTC) 6 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 7 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76A754ECBC 8 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 9 Fri, 5 Mar 2021 21:11:17 +0000 (UTC) 10 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org 11 X-Spam-Flag: NO 12 X-Spam-Score: -0.199 13 X-Spam-Level: 14 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 15 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 16 DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 17 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 18 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 19 Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); 20 dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com 21 Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) 22 by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) 23 with ESMTP id NIzfN2shV_-f 24 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 25 Fri, 5 Mar 2021 21:11:16 +0000 (UTC) 26 X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 27 Received: from mail-wr1-x42f.google.com (mail-wr1-x42f.google.com 28 [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42f]) 29 by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6B964ECA1 30 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 31 Fri, 5 Mar 2021 21:11:15 +0000 (UTC) 32 Received: by mail-wr1-x42f.google.com with SMTP id 7so3589785wrz.0 33 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>; 34 Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:11:15 -0800 (PST) 35 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; 36 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; 37 bh=11cl0UmxwKl7c+KaNjKtjxTzWJ4sp9DxNYA3hFum+uw=; 38 b=uMrDEIpvPhCSB5MWbdEEXEyFsMX0Gu5hq6UsYVXulP1keqyOCSHbWbqwGMrwPFA0ap 39 WONlb98GOddQvR8SwcL5AX1jFdjdHjfx9ERjFVhJU7FKV1gDP43Pr+GKaSxs3JTf/oFX 40 y4m3x6yAu9FK9NrY6k1pon+jddqnJC/yY7OCNYUY84en94QcVjLe/elbRlOi0Ucr4SqY 41 MDp335RCSvD4YzsHliBdTpX+G28s5Ea0PimXd1c0GUeeouVsezaKOq7sfcD5ZVno2yA8 42 +EveS+2OI1jxH1EWivOo/RlURGVULalb+1NdM8WlcFoDcTsIb1Y7MMdT9l+slgQMIN1P 43 3G1g== 44 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 45 d=1e100.net; s=20161025; 46 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date 47 :message-id:subject:to; 48 bh=11cl0UmxwKl7c+KaNjKtjxTzWJ4sp9DxNYA3hFum+uw=; 49 b=OKGwYgh47xrEYygZF+kPKRUT4uLiWjvEWLhk+P2++yOWdkBGb5kzOxEAwoNfNBBvAR 50 LwN8iFQYKPVUZIg+AU2RQsHdQY3kGhW8569T/PTH4HHjjheacA5S91PqeFjwDgTQp/qf 51 U1+XU7l2SwnPozAULLzU0iNv2hABfa6jhLVTPebBJUIpC6saB29EM7iJ1IqhNXlFLW+v 52 cMImg0tAUr1TrpkEIQObeaGZ4Tm8addcdVuA7W6JNttbA/gaCD04T8zbY2OjKpRKrMfI 53 oqoSjqnt4aLeGXUXki0+NbniHUZd8fkbadl5c6q7TvLjVltVi/LtpCam9bF9XfQ/k+GQ 54 ipdg== 55 X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530R/eq8tXKr0DMlo8VP/BDjCUOTBh3mSbi/9vZqapqEZ7OcQ9qm 56 KVsQqBYS560Qq4EVFQLv4MtCvB0BHHcMNVvmGC4= 57 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzp8t5LESmy/bFdt1EMNeC8QCqD3tbHWBsqdpwa3FnYEqaEkViXcxzkdc6QRI70spF9ppktqRHT/x4ur+M6Q8M= 58 X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4e85:: with SMTP id e5mr11430288wru.218.1614978673907; 59 Fri, 05 Mar 2021 13:11:13 -0800 (PST) 60 MIME-Version: 1.0 61 References: <CA+YkXXxUdZFYTa1c-F=-FzoQQVtV3GUmE2Okec-zRAD3xS1qAQ@mail.gmail.com> 62 <CAMnpzfop8ttqjMAKoS37zpQV6WiZfi1Bn+y_e-HaepTiD4Vm1Q@mail.gmail.com> 63 <CAB0O3SVNyr_t23Y0LyT0mSaf6LONFRLYJ8qzO7rcdJFnrGccFw@mail.gmail.com> 64 <CA+YkXXwkSCu=2UOEhzFBzGDHo1c=Ewqsnxp632ke3jdH1ff5WA@mail.gmail.com> 65 <CA+YkXXwfS7eer5Za_ed9tCNdfOp4c3nV_X=mfXzoDxMm6BrizQ@mail.gmail.com> 66 In-Reply-To: <CA+YkXXwfS7eer5Za_ed9tCNdfOp4c3nV_X=mfXzoDxMm6BrizQ@mail.gmail.com> 67 From: Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> 68 Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 14:11:02 -0700 69 Message-ID: <CALeFGL31M5DAULLRtCwjPYHaPVqsVqREUg6WQ2-cuj23SNk=BA@mail.gmail.com> 70 To: Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>, 71 Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 72 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002d9ba905bcd08603" 73 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 22:21:51 +0000 74 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST 75 Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining 76 X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 77 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 78 Precedence: list 79 List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org> 80 List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>, 81 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe> 82 List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/> 83 List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 84 List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help> 85 List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>, 86 <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe> 87 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2021 21:11:17 -0000 88 89 --0000000000002d9ba905bcd08603 90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 91 92 It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be 93 "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was 94 useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when 95 submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction 96 will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different 97 context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades 98 the security of the network in the process. 99 100 As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will 101 invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities 102 and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may 103 compute these more "useful" proofs of work. This is because any change in 104 the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the 105 future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no 106 entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at 107 large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed 108 by entities with a vested interest in deciding what the new "useful" proof 109 of work should be. 110 111 All of these things make the Bitcoin network worse off. 112 113 Keagan 114 115 On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < 116 bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: 117 118 > Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my 119 > cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles 120 > problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC 121 > network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I do 122 > want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regards to 123 > this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If things such 124 > as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very 125 > least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at 126 > least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just 127 > let me know on the preferred format? 128 > 129 > Best regards, Andrew 130 > 131 > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation < 132 > loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: 133 > 134 >> Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to 135 >> renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the 136 >> most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness 137 >> of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki 138 >> format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal? 139 >> 140 >> Best regards, Andrew 141 >> 142 >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net> 143 >> wrote: 144 >> 145 >>> Hi Ryan and Andrew, 146 >>> 147 >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev < 148 >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: 149 >>> 150 >>>> 151 >>>> https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ 152 >>>> "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work" 153 >>>> on | 04 Aug 2015 154 >>>> 155 >>>> 156 >>> Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining 157 >>> market will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward. It does 158 >>> not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost. 159 >>> 160 >>> Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities and 161 >>> that we should move to other resources. I would argue that the negative 162 >>> externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so the 163 >>> point is likely moot. 164 >>> 165 >>> _______________________________________________ 166 > bitcoin-dev mailing list 167 > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org 168 > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev 169 > 170 171 --0000000000002d9ba905bcd08603 172 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" 173 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 174 175 <div dir=3D"ltr">It is important to understand that it is critical for the = 176 work to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the sa= 177 me. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing= 178 at stake when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block= 179 construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful=C2=A0in= 180 a different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actual= 181 ly degrades the security of the network in the process.<div><br></div><div>= 182 As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will in= 183 validate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities and = 184 disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may com= 185 pute these more "useful" proofs of work. This is because any chan= 186 ge in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change i= 187 n the future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that n= 188 o entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at lar= 189 ge. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed by e= 190 ntities with a vested interest in deciding what the new "useful" = 191 proof of work should be.</div><div><br></div><div>All of these things make = 192 the Bitcoin network worse off.</div><div><br></div><div>Keagan</div></div><= 193 br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri,= 194 Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"ma= 195 ilto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundati= 196 on.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m= 197 argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left= 198 :1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iter= 199 ate that my cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but = 200 also tackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something= 201 the BTC network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplici= 202 ty, I do want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regar= 203 ds to this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If thing= 204 s such as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at t= 205 he very least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography d= 206 oes at least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP,= 207 just let me know on the preferred format?<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div = 208 dir=3D"auto">Best regards, Andrew</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"= 209 ><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero= 210 Foundation <<a href=3D"mailto:loneroassociation@gmail.com" target=3D"_b= 211 lank">loneroassociation@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class= 212 =3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rg= 213 b(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto">Hi, this isn't about= 214 the energy efficient argument in regards to renewables or mining devices b= 215 ut a better cryptography layer to get the most out of your hashing for vali= 216 dation. I do understand the arbitrariness of it, but do want to still propo= 217 se a document. Do I use the Media Wiki format on GitHub and just attach it = 218 as my proposal?<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Best regards, = 219 Andrew</div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"= 220 gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom <<a href=3D"mailto:c= 221 1.devrandom@niftybox.net" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">c1.devrandom= 222 @niftybox.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty= 223 le=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddi= 224 ng-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Ryan and Andrew,<br= 225 ></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr"= 226 >On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <<a href=3D"m= 227 ailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" rel=3D"noreferrer noreferrer n= 228 oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>> = 229 wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0= 230 px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br> 231 =C2=A0 <a href=3D"https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/" rel=3D"nor= 232 eferrer noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.tru= 233 thcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/</a><br> 234 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work"<br> 235 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 on | 04 Aug 2015<br> 236 <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Just to belabor this a bit, the paper = 237 demonstrates that the mining market will tend to expend resources equivalen= 238 t to miner reward.=C2=A0 It does not prove that mining work has to expend *= 239 energy* as a primary cost.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Some might argue th= 240 at energy expenditure has negative externalities and that we should move to= 241 other resources.=C2=A0 I would argue that the negative externalities will = 242 go away soon because of the move to renewables, so the point is likely moo= 243 t.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div></div></div></div> 244 </blockquote></div> 245 </blockquote></div> 246 _______________________________________________<br> 247 bitcoin-dev mailing list<br> 248 <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">= 249 bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br> 250 <a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" = 251 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= 252 man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br> 253 </blockquote></div> 254 255 --0000000000002d9ba905bcd08603-- 256