From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D77A8C0001 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 02:58:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFFBD401D6 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 02:58:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.401 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.401 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dashjr.org Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aTsZWEvrarak for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 02:58:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [IPv6:2001:470:88ff:2f::1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A7B401D0 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 02:58:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.lan (unknown [12.190.236.203]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D280638A001F; Mon, 17 May 2021 02:58:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=dashjr.org; s=zinan; t=1621220332; bh=nPMt9oTnajV5R7ofVTTeQcsi89N28NvpXFQbfM6b7NQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To; b=VH5sj/oKIAB+kb1bO8FsD6/kZhaK1F84KVrVAjnlCvL/Uyzra6+1unc1yCpstFW2F y2c3b4l0bTqwOaZkXxSsbkWC1ZrRN2VQQPACoBTKO2lY9fl73uDM5frG5Ocx9PMexc 6P0qUehLa+TNDPSjOHH6Kg9Mnd98uC/ry0dgP6eo= X-Hashcash: 1:25:210517:fuhmic@web.de::gdk0R3ywuG9ADHsb:aoqH X-Hashcash: 1:25:210517:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::mjnanh2WA0idcRf3:b4Hvc X-Hashcash: 1:25:210517:gmkarl@gmail.com::N3zhZ3Xctoglgw23:aIY1s X-Hashcash: 1:25:210517:anton@etc-group.com::VwfheQP7iLUA=1pg:aC5rW From: Luke Dashjr To: Michael Fuhrmann , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion , Karl , Anton Ragin Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 02:58:12 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 References: In-Reply-To: X-KMail-QuotePrefix: > MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <202105170258.13233.luke@dashjr.org> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Force to do nothing for first 9 minutes to save 90% of mining energy 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, 17 May 2021 02:58:56 -0000 On Friday 14 May 2021 21:41:23 Michael Fuhrmann via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Bitcoin should create blocks every 10 minutes in average. So why do > miners need to mine the 9 minutes after the last block was found? It's > not necessary. It increases security, and is unavoidable anyway. > Problem: How to prevent "pre-mining" in the 9 minutes time window? You can't. > Possible ideas for discussion: > > - (maybe most difficult) global network timer sending a salted hash time > code after 9 minutes. this enables validation by nodes. PoW *is* the global network timer. > - (easy attempt) mining jobs before 9 minutes have a 10 (or 100 or just > high enough) times higher difficulty. so everyone can mine any time but > before to 9 minutes are up there will be a too high downside. It is more > efficient to wait then paying high bills. The bitcoin will get a "puls". There's no timestamp at this stage of consensus. On Sunday 16 May 2021 18:10:12 Karl via bitcoin-dev wrote: > The clock might be implementable on a peer network level by requiring > inclusion of a transaction that was broadcast after a 9 minute delay. That requires a centralised authority. On Sunday 16 May 2021 20:31:47 Anton Ragin via bitcoin-dev wrote: > 1. Has anyone considered that it might be technically not possible to > completely 'power down' mining rigs during this 'cool-down' period of time? > While modern CPUs have power-saving modes, I am not sure about ASICs used > for mining. That would be miners' problem, not the network's... New ASICs would no doubt be made to work more efficiently. > 2. I am not a huge data-center specialist, but it was my understanding that > they charge per unit of installed (maximum) electricity consumption. It > would mean that if the miner needs X kilowatts-hour within that 1 minute > when they are allowed to mine, he/she will have to pay for the same X for > the remaining 9 minutes - and as such would have no economic incentive not > to draw that power when idling. Actually, this would be a good thing: it would heavily discourage datacentre use (which is very harmful to mining decentralisation). > 4. My counter-proposal to the community to address energy consumption > problems would be *to encourage users to allow only 'green miners' process > their transaction.* In particular: >... > (b) Should there be some non-profit organization(s) certifying green miners > and giving them cryptographic certificates of conformity (either usage of > green energy or purchase of offsets), users could encrypt their > transactions and submit to mempool in such a format that *only green miners > would be able to decrypt and process them*. Hello centralisation. Might as well just have someone sign miner keys, and get rid of PoW entirely...