[bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 899 bytes --]

Hello, I want to start a new BIP proposal aiming to tackle some of the
energy efficiency issues w/ Bitcoin mining. Excuse my ignorance given this
is my first time making a BIP proposal, but is there a specific format I
need to follow? Do I just make a draft on my personal GitHub or need to
attach the README?

Anyways my idea is centered around a hybrid mining integration w/ POW/PoST
for BTC's SHA-256 hash algorithm. The integration is actually a
cryptography proof. While I would prefer a soft fork integration, a vastly
different cryptography proof without affecting the current node integration
is less than feasible.

Anyways, I do want to submit my document explaining everything and how all
this would work. I am mostly a Quantum Engineer and Bioinformatics
consultant for a living, so I think what I can propose to an extent may be
of interest to some.

Best regards,
Andrew M. K. Nassief

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1210 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Ryan Grant]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 9:39 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Hello, I want to start a new BIP proposal aiming to tackle some of
> the energy efficiency issues w/ Bitcoin mining. Excuse my ignorance
> given this is my first time making a BIP proposal, but is there a
> specific format I need to follow?

Hi Andrew,

I would like to discourage you from writing a BIP on this topic, as
any such proposal is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior
discussions in the community.

Please update your priors with the following:

  https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki
    BIP: 2
    Title: BIP process, revised

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

Your topic brings up an interesting edge case, which is whether the
BIP repository is an open forum for all possible arguments that are
technically well constructed.  Obviously: no; but by what
non-arbitrary process do we decide?

I propose that the BIP Editor's role should include preserving signal
in the table of contents generated from our proposal repository, by
unilaterally rejecting - without any fuhrer comment - technically well
constructed proposals which are guaranteed to be rejected based on
prior discussions in the community, as spam.  I think this is already
how it works, but we haven't actually written down this part of the
norms.

Since censorship is always a concern, it would be appropriate to
maintain a moderation log of spam BIPs, so that observers could judge
whether the BIP Editor is misusing the BIP assignment process to
censor proposals with some merit.  Since one of the requirements for
submitting a BIP is to notify bitcoin-dev, the log is already
maintained.  Since bitcoin-dev is moderated, the moderators take on a
low level of responsibility for gauging spam proposals (and they are
pretty relaxed about it, since it is better to err on the side of
inclusion for new developers, except for obvious patent bombing).
Since the bitcoin-dev moderation log is public and anyone can
subscribe to it, protective transparency is again achieved.

  https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1173 bytes --]

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 <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 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.
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2050 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2014 bytes --]

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 <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 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.
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3223 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Keagan McClelland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3595 bytes --]

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 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 different
context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
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 hardware 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 bitcoin 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 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 <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 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5390 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6943 bytes --]

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 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
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 the
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 first
version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
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 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 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 is beneficial.
Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized. It is few
unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My goal
outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents 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 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 in 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-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 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 different
> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
> 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 hardware 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 bitcoin 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 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 <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 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
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9446 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Keagan McClelland]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7803 bytes --]

> A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and 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.

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 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
> 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 the
> 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 first
> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
> 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 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 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 is
> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.
> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My
> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents
> 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 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 in 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-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 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 different
>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
>> 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 hardware 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 bitcoin 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 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 <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 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 10684 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9313 bytes --]

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
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 able
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 way
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 from 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 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
>> 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 the
>> 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 first
>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
>> 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 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 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 is
>> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.
>> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My
>> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents
>> 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 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 in 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-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 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 different
>>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
>>> 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 hardware 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 bitcoin 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 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 <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 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
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12722 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Ricardo Filipe]

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 sábado,
6/03/2021 à(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 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 able 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 way 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 from 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 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 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 the 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 first version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such 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 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 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 is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents 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 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 in 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-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 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 different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades 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 hardware 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 bitcoin 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 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 <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 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10989 bytes --]

Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo:
https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki
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 <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 sábado,
>> 6/03/2021 à(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
>> 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 able
>> 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 way
>> 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 from 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 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
>> 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 the
>> 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 first
>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
>> 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 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 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 is
>> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.
>> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My
>> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents
>> 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 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 in
>> 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-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 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 different
>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
>> 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 hardware
>> 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 bitcoin
>> 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 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 <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 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
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14547 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11511 bytes --]

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.mediawiki
> 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 <
> 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 sábado,
>>> 6/03/2021 à(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
>>> 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 able
>>> 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 way
>>> 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 from 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 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
>>> 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 the
>>> 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 first
>>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
>>> 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 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 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 is
>>> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.
>>> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My
>>> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents
>>> 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 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 in
>>> 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-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 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 different
>>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
>>> 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 hardware
>>> 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 bitcoin
>>> 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 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 <
>>> 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 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
>>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15517 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Erik Aronesty]

secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.   your BIP needs about 10 more pages
and some degree of technical merit.

i suggest you start here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0

proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.   i always
suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
equivalent.   you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.

- erik

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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.mediawiki
>> 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 <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 sábado,
>>>> 6/03/2021 à(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 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 able 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 way 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 from 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 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 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 the 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 first version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such 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 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 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 is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents 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 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 in 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-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 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 different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades 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 hardware 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 bitcoin 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 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 <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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13416 bytes --]

Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in
relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I
might rephrase it.

In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a
sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to
follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references
implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.

This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am personally
looking into developing as a hard fork.

Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to
references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the
cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.

Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:

> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.   your BIP needs about 10 more pages
> and some degree of technical merit.
>
> i suggest you start here:
>
> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
>
> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.   i always
> suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
> equivalent.   you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
> burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.
>
> - erik
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.mediawiki
> >> 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 <
> 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 sábado,
> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(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 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
> able 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 way
> 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 from 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 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
> 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 the
> 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 first
> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
> 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 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 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 is
> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.
> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My
> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents
> 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 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 in
> 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-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 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 different
> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
> 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
> hardware 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
> bitcoin 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 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 <
> 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 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 19000 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[email]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 13039 bytes --]


I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be very good.

Cheers,
-Yancy

On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
 Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I might rephrase it.  In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status. This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am personally looking into developing as a hard fork. Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.   your BIP needs about 10 more pages
and some degree of technical merit.

i suggest you start here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0

proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.   i always
suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
equivalent.   you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.

- erik

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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.mediawiki
>> 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 <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 sábado,
>>>> 6/03/2021 à(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 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 able 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 way 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 from 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 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 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 the 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 first version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such 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 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 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 is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents 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 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 in 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-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 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 different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades 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 hardware 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 bitcoin 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 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 <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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 19361 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 14925 bytes --]

Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC
hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in
regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an
alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the
future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes
I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once
this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints
explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus
that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I
am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft,
I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to
working on technological implementation.

Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:

> I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be
> very good.
>
> Cheers,
> -Yancy
>
> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in
> relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I
> might rephrase it.
>
> In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a
> sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to
> follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references
> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.
>
> This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am
> personally looking into developing as a hard fork.
>
> Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to
> references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the
> cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:
>
>> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.   your BIP needs about 10 more pages
>> and some degree of technical merit.
>>
>> i suggest you start here:
>>
>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
>>
>> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.   i always
>> suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
>> equivalent.   you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
>> burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.
>>
>> - erik
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.mediawiki
>> >> 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 <
>> 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 sábado,
>> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(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 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
>> able 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 way
>> 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 from 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
>> 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 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 the 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 first
>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
>> 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 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 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 is
>> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.
>> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My
>> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents
>> 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 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 in
>> 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-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 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 different
>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
>> 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
>> hardware 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
>> bitcoin 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 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 <
>> 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 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
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 20431 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 16066 bytes --]

Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation cryptography
in that aspect:
https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html
My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs
for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.
That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive
feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an
improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific
thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and
call it a day.

Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <
loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC
> hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in
> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an
> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the
> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes
> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once
> this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints
> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus
> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I
> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft,
> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to
> working on technological implementation.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
>
>> I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be
>> very good.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Yancy
>>
>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in
>> relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I
>> might rephrase it.
>>
>> In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a
>> sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to
>> follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references
>> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.
>>
>> This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am
>> personally looking into developing as a hard fork.
>>
>> Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to
>> references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the
>> cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:
>>
>>> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.   your BIP needs about 10 more pages
>>> and some degree of technical merit.
>>>
>>> i suggest you start here:
>>>
>>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
>>>
>>> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.   i always
>>> suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
>>> equivalent.   you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
>>> burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.
>>>
>>> - erik
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > 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.mediawiki
>>> >> 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 <
>>> 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 sábado,
>>> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(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 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
>>> able 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 way
>>> 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
>>> from 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
>>> 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 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 the 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 first
>>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
>>> 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 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 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 is
>>> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.
>>> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My
>>> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents
>>> 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 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 in
>>> 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-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 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 different
>>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades
>>> 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
>>> hardware 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
>>> bitcoin 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
>>> 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 <
>>> 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 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
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 21721 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[email]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 15426 bytes --]


My email was not intended as an insult.  Your proposal seemed a bit like gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you were a bot spamming the list. 
Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?  How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin?  At what point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency?  Will we have lost the war to our new centralized overlord?
Cheers,
-Yancy


On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
 Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation cryptography in that aspect: https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.htmlMy BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and call it a day. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft, I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to working on technological implementation. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be very good.

Cheers,
-Yancy

On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
 Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I might rephrase it.  In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status. This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am personally looking into developing as a hard fork. Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.   your BIP needs about 10 more pages
and some degree of technical merit.

i suggest you start here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0

proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.   i always
suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
equivalent.   you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.

- erik

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> 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.mediawiki
>> 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 <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 sábado,
>>>> 6/03/2021 à(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 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 able 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 way 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 from 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 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 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 the 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 first version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such 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 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 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 is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents 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 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 in 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-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 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 different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades 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 hardware 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 bitcoin 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 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 <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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev


 


 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 23465 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 17758 bytes --]

Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and
key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric
cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a
different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I
should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a
few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to
not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but
enough with the sarcasm.

Best regards, Andrew

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:

> My email was not intended as an insult.  Your proposal seemed a bit like
> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as
> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you
> were a bot spamming the list.
>
>
> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?
> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin?  At what
> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency?  Will we have
> lost the war to our new centralized overlord?
>
> Cheers,
> -Yancy
>
>
> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <
> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation
> cryptography in that aspect:
> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html
> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs
> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.
> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive
> feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an
> improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific
> thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and
> call it a day.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <
> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a
>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in
>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an
>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the
>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes
>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once
>> this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints
>> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus
>> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I
>> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft,
>> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to
>> working on technological implementation.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
>>
>>> I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be
>>> very good.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Yancy
>>>
>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in
>>> relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I
>>> might rephrase it.
>>>
>>> In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a
>>> sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to
>>> follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references
>>> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.
>>>
>>> This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am
>>> personally looking into developing as a hard fork.
>>>
>>> Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to
>>> references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the
>>> cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.   your BIP needs about 10 more pages
>>>> and some degree of technical merit.
>>>>
>>>> i suggest you start here:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
>>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
>>>>
>>>> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.   i always
>>>> suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
>>>> equivalent.   you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
>>>> burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.
>>>>
>>>> - erik
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > 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.mediawiki
>>>> >> 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 <
>>>> 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 sábado,
>>>> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(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 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
>>>> able 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 way
>>>> 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
>>>> from 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
>>>> 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 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 the 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 first
>>>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
>>>> 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 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
>>>> 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
>>>> is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully
>>>> decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being
>>>> entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in
>>>> a way that prevents 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
>>>> 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
>>>> in 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-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
>>>> 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
>>>> different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually
>>>> degrades 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
>>>> hardware 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
>>>> bitcoin 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
>>>> 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 <
>>>> 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 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
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 26777 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[yancy]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3695 bytes --]

Ok thanks.  Using the correct terminology helps people understand what you're talking about and take you seriously.

Cheers,
-Yancy

Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>:

> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but enough with the sarcasm.
> 
> Best regards, Andrew
> 
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
>> My email was not intended as an insult.  Your proposal seemed a bit like gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you were a bot spamming the list.
>>  
>> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?  How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin?  At what point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency?  Will we have lost the war to our new centralized overlord?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> -Yancy
>> 
>> 
>> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  
>>> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation cryptography in that aspect: https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html
>>> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.
>>> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and call it a day.
>>>  
>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>  
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft, I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to working on technological implementation.
>>>>  
>>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>>  
>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
>>>>> I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be very good.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Yancy
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>>> …
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7808 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4098 bytes --]

Hi, no worries. I made the changes now in the GitHub repository and pull
request. I'm hoping for a BIP # soon. Thanks for the feedback, and I guess
the sense of humor.

Best regards, Andrew

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:45 AM yancy <email@yancy.lol> wrote:

> Ok thanks.  Using the correct terminology helps people understand what
> you're talking about and take you seriously.
>
> Cheers,
> -Yancy
>
> Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and
> key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric
> cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a
> different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I
> should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a
> few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to
> not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but
> enough with the sarcasm.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
>
>> My email was not intended as an insult.  Your proposal seemed a bit like
>> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as
>> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you
>> were a bot spamming the list.
>>
>>
>> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?
>> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin?  At what
>> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency?  Will we have
>> lost the war to our new centralized overlord?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Yancy
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <
>> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation
>> cryptography in that aspect:
>> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html
>> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs
>> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.
>> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer
>> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all
>> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a
>> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a
>> repository and call it a day.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <
>> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a
>>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in
>>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an
>>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the
>>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes
>>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once
>>> this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints
>>> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus
>>> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I
>>> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft,
>>> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to
>>> working on technological implementation.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be
>>>> very good.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Yancy
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> …
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7973 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[email]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4030 bytes --]


My mistake for thinking your text was generated text, and my humor was not meant to be directed at you, so apologies if you took it personally. 
PS: The AI overlord is no joke
Cheers,
-Yancy

On Saturday, March 13, 2021 18:11 CET, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
 Hi, no worries. I made the changes now in the GitHub repository and pull request. I'm hoping for a BIP # soon. Thanks for the feedback, and I guess the sense of humor. Best regards, Andrew On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:45 AM yancy <email@yancy.lol> wrote:Ok thanks.  Using the correct terminology helps people understand what you're talking about and take you seriously.

Cheers,
-Yancy 
Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>:Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but enough with the sarcasm. Best regards, Andrew On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
My email was not intended as an insult.  Your proposal seemed a bit like gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you were a bot spamming the list. 
Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?  How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin?  At what point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency?  Will we have lost the war to our new centralized overlord?
Cheers,
-Yancy


On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
 Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation cryptography in that aspect: https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.htmlMy BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and call it a day. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft, I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to working on technological implementation. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be very good.

Cheers,
-Yancy

On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
 …


 


 


 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8155 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4951 bytes --]

I have added quite a bit more details. I haven't made any UML diagrams just
yet. I did add a basic non-technical infographic though, and more then
likely making a technical UML for the cryptographic mechanisms will be on
my to-do list. I have also updated the terminology and added a bit more
content.

Best regards, Andrew

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 2:44 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:

> My mistake for thinking your text was generated text, and my humor was not
> meant to be directed at you, so apologies if you took it personally.
>
>
> PS: The AI overlord is no joke
>
> Cheers,
> -Yancy
>
> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 18:11 CET, Lonero Foundation <
> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi, no worries. I made the changes now in the GitHub repository and pull
> request. I'm hoping for a BIP # soon. Thanks for the feedback, and I guess
> the sense of humor.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:45 AM yancy <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
>
>> Ok thanks.  Using the correct terminology helps people understand what
>> you're talking about and take you seriously.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Yancy
>>
>>
>> Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm
>> and key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric
>> cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a
>> different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I
>> should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a
>> few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to
>> not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but
>> enough with the sarcasm.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
>>
>>> My email was not intended as an insult.  Your proposal seemed a bit like
>>> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as
>>> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you
>>> were a bot spamming the list.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?
>>> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin?  At what
>>> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency?  Will we have
>>> lost the war to our new centralized overlord?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -Yancy
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <
>>> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation
>>> cryptography in that aspect:
>>> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html
>>> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs
>>> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.
>>> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer
>>> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all
>>> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a
>>> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a
>>> repository and call it a day.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <
>>> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a
>>>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in
>>>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an
>>>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the
>>>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes
>>>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once
>>>> this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints
>>>> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus
>>>> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I
>>>> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft,
>>>> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to
>>>> working on technological implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not
>>>>> be very good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> -Yancy
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8833 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Erik Aronesty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 19131 bytes --]

Any proposed hard fork will wind up being some sort of Bitcoin sv thing

no matter what you propose or no matter how awesome it is they'll be many
people in the community who would prefer to continue business as usual.
which I'd like to point out seems to be working very, very well.

so you should go into it with open eyes and start a fork right from the
get-go.

This is why I'm a fan of proof of burn.   you can also use burned main
chain as a way of mining on the new chain.

the interesting thing is that you can calculate proof of work equivalence
in a meaningful way if you use Bitcoin as a reference, and the total mined
supply of the new coin, as another reference point.

That would enable you to switch it entirely to burned coins as a proxy for
proof of work, and enable people who have Bitcoin to meaningfully
participate in the new network.













On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:02 AM Lonero Foundation <
loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and
> key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric
> cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a
> different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I
> should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a
> few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to
> not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but
> enough with the sarcasm.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
>
>> My email was not intended as an insult.  Your proposal seemed a bit like
>> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as
>> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you
>> were a bot spamming the list.
>>
>>
>> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?
>> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin?  At what
>> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency?  Will we have
>> lost the war to our new centralized overlord?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Yancy
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <
>> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation
>> cryptography in that aspect:
>> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html
>> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs
>> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.
>> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer
>> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all
>> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a
>> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a
>> repository and call it a day.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <
>> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a
>>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in
>>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an
>>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the
>>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes
>>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once
>>> this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints
>>> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus
>>> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I
>>> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft,
>>> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to
>>> working on technological implementation.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Andrew himself is an algo.  The crypto training set must not be
>>>> very good.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Yancy
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in
>>>> relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I
>>>> might rephrase it.
>>>>
>>>> In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a
>>>> sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to
>>>> follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references
>>>> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.
>>>>
>>>> This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am
>>>> personally looking into developing as a hard fork.
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to
>>>> references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the
>>>> cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.   your BIP needs about 10 more pages
>>>>> and some degree of technical merit.
>>>>>
>>>>> i suggest you start here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
>>>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
>>>>>
>>>>> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.   i always
>>>>> suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
>>>>> equivalent.   you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
>>>>> burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> - erik
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 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.mediawiki
>>>>> >> 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 <
>>>>> 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 sábado,
>>>>> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(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 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
>>>>> able 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 way
>>>>> 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
>>>>> from 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
>>>>> 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 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 the 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 first
>>>>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
>>>>> 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 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully
>>>>> decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being
>>>>> entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in
>>>>> a way that prevents 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> in 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-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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually
>>>>> degrades 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
>>>>> hardware 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
>>>>> bitcoin 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
>>>>> 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 <
>>>>> 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 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
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 28969 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[ZmnSCPxj]

Good morning Andrew,

Looking over the text...

> # I am looking towards integrating memory hard compatibility w/ the mining algorithm. Memory hard computation allows for time and space complexity for data storage functionality, and there is a way this can likely be implemented without disenfranchising current miners or their hardware if done right.

I believe this represents a tradeoff between time and space --- either you use one spatial unit and take a lot of time, or you use multiple spatial units and take smaller units of time.

But such time/space tradeoffs are already possible with the existing mechanism --- if you cannot run your existing SHA256d miner faster (time), you just buy more miners (space).

Thus, I think the requirement for memory hardness is a red herring in the design of proof-of-work algorithms.
Memory hardness *prevents* this tradeoff (you cannot create a smaller miner that takes longer to mine, as you have a memory requirement that prevents trading off space).

It is also helpful to remember that spinning rust consumes electricity as well, and that any operation that requires changes in data being stored requires a lot of energy.
Indeed, in purely computational algorithms (e.g. CPU processing pipelines) a significant amount of energy is spent on *changing* voltage levels, with very little energy (negligible compared to the energy spent in changing voltage levels in modern CMOS hardware) in *maintaining* the voltage levels.

> I don't see a reason why somebody with $2m of regular hardware can't mine the same amount of BTC as somebody with $2m worth of ASICs.

I assume here that "regular hardware" means "general-purpose computing device".

The Futamura projections are a good reason I see: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/05/three-projections-of-doctor-futamura.html

Basically, any interpreter + fixed program can be converted, via Futamura projection, to an optimized program that cannot interpret any other program but runs faster and takes less resources.

In short, any hardware interpreter (i.e. general-purpose computing device) + a fixed proof-of-whatever program, can be converted to an optimized hardware that can only perform that proof-of-whatever program, but consuming less energy and space and will (eventually) be cheaper per unit as well, so that $2M of such a specific hardware will outperform $2M of general-purpose computing hardwre.

Thus, all application-specificity (i.e. any fixed program) will always take less resources to run than a generic hardware interpreter that can run any program.

Thus, if you ever nail down the specifics of your algorithm, and if a thousand-Bitcoin industry ever grows around that program, you will find that ASICs ***will*** arise that run that algorithm faster and less energy-consuming than general-purpose hardware that has to interpret a binary.
**For one, memory/disk bus operations are limited only to actual data, without requiring additional bus operations to fetch code.**
Data can be connected directly from the output of one computational sub-unit to the input of another, without requiring (as in the general-purpose hardware case) that the intermediate outputs be placed in general-purpose storage register (which, as noted, takes energy to *change* its contents, and as general-purpose storage will also be used to hold *other* intermediate outputs).
Specialized HDDs can arise as well which are optimized for whatever access pattern your scheme requires, and that would also outperform general-purpose HDDs as well.

Further optimizations may also exist in an ASIC context that are not readily visible but which are likely to be hidden somewhere --- the more complicated your program design, the more likely it is that you will not readily see such hidden optimizations that can be achieved by ASICs (xref ASICBOOST).

In short, even with memory-hardness, an ASIC will arise which might need to be connected to an array of (possibly specialized) HDDs but which will still outperform your general-purpose hardware connected to an array of general-purpose storage.

Indeed, various storage solutions already have different specializations: SMR HDDs replace tape drives, PMR HDDs serve as caches of SMR HDDs, SSDs serve as caches of PMR HDDs.
An optimized technology stack like that can outperform a generic HDD.

You cannot fight the inevitability of ASICs and other specialized hardware, just as you cannot fight specialization.

You puny humans must specialize in order to achieve the heights of your civilization --- I can bet you 547 satoshis that you yourself cannot farm your own food, you specialize in software engineering of some kind and just pay a farmer to harvest your food for you.
Indeed, you probably do not pay a farmer directly, but pay an intermediary that specializes in packing food for transport from the farm to your domicile. which itself probably delegates the actual transporting to another specialist.
Similarly, ASICs will arise and focus on particularly high-value fixed computations, inevitably.



Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7386 bytes --]

I wouldn't fully discount general purpose hardware or hardware outside of
the realm of ASICS. BOINC (https://cds.cern.ch/record/800111/files/p1099.pdf)
implements a decent distributed computing protocol (granted it isn't a
cryptocurrency), but it far computes data at a much cheaper cost compared
to the competition w/ decent levels of fault tolerance. I myself am running
an extremely large scale open distributed computing pipeline, and can tell
you for certain that what is out there is insane. In regards to the
argument of generic HDDs and CPUs, the algorithmic implementation I am
providing would likely make them more adaptable. More than likely,
evidently there would be specialized HDDs similar to BurstCoin Miners, and
128-core CPUs, and all that. This could be inevitable, but the main point
is providing access to other forms of computation along w/ ASICs. At the
very least, the generic guys can experience it, and other infrastructures
can have some form of compatibility. In regards to ASICBOOST, I am already
well aware of it, as well as mining firmwares, autotuning, multi-threaded
processing setups, overclocking, and even different research firms
involved. I think it is feasible to provide multiple forms of computation
without disenfranchising one over the other. I'm also well aware of the
history of BTC and how you can mine BTC just by downloading the whitepaper,
to USB block erupters, to generic CPUs, to few ASICS, to entire mining
farms. I also have seen experimental projects such as Cuckoo
<https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo>, so I know the arguments regarding
computation vs. memory boundness and whether or not they can be one of the
same. The answer is yes, but it needs to be designed correctly. I think in
regards to the level of improvement, this is just one of the improvements
in my BIPs in regards to making PoW more adaptable. I also have
cryptography improvements I'm looking into as well. Nonetheless, I believe
the implementation I want to do would at the very least be quite
interesting.

Best regards, Andrew

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:05 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Andrew,
>
> Looking over the text...
>
> > # I am looking towards integrating memory hard compatibility w/ the
> mining algorithm. Memory hard computation allows for time and space
> complexity for data storage functionality, and there is a way this can
> likely be implemented without disenfranchising current miners or their
> hardware if done right.
>
> I believe this represents a tradeoff between time and space --- either you
> use one spatial unit and take a lot of time, or you use multiple spatial
> units and take smaller units of time.
>
> But such time/space tradeoffs are already possible with the existing
> mechanism --- if you cannot run your existing SHA256d miner faster (time),
> you just buy more miners (space).
>
> Thus, I think the requirement for memory hardness is a red herring in the
> design of proof-of-work algorithms.
> Memory hardness *prevents* this tradeoff (you cannot create a smaller
> miner that takes longer to mine, as you have a memory requirement that
> prevents trading off space).
>
> It is also helpful to remember that spinning rust consumes electricity as
> well, and that any operation that requires changes in data being stored
> requires a lot of energy.
> Indeed, in purely computational algorithms (e.g. CPU processing pipelines)
> a significant amount of energy is spent on *changing* voltage levels, with
> very little energy (negligible compared to the energy spent in changing
> voltage levels in modern CMOS hardware) in *maintaining* the voltage levels.
>
> > I don't see a reason why somebody with $2m of regular hardware can't
> mine the same amount of BTC as somebody with $2m worth of ASICs.
>
> I assume here that "regular hardware" means "general-purpose computing
> device".
>
> The Futamura projections are a good reason I see:
> http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/05/three-projections-of-doctor-futamura.html
>
> Basically, any interpreter + fixed program can be converted, via Futamura
> projection, to an optimized program that cannot interpret any other program
> but runs faster and takes less resources.
>
> In short, any hardware interpreter (i.e. general-purpose computing device)
> + a fixed proof-of-whatever program, can be converted to an optimized
> hardware that can only perform that proof-of-whatever program, but
> consuming less energy and space and will (eventually) be cheaper per unit
> as well, so that $2M of such a specific hardware will outperform $2M of
> general-purpose computing hardwre.
>
> Thus, all application-specificity (i.e. any fixed program) will always
> take less resources to run than a generic hardware interpreter that can run
> any program.
>
> Thus, if you ever nail down the specifics of your algorithm, and if a
> thousand-Bitcoin industry ever grows around that program, you will find
> that ASICs ***will*** arise that run that algorithm faster and less
> energy-consuming than general-purpose hardware that has to interpret a
> binary.
> **For one, memory/disk bus operations are limited only to actual data,
> without requiring additional bus operations to fetch code.**
> Data can be connected directly from the output of one computational
> sub-unit to the input of another, without requiring (as in the
> general-purpose hardware case) that the intermediate outputs be placed in
> general-purpose storage register (which, as noted, takes energy to *change*
> its contents, and as general-purpose storage will also be used to hold
> *other* intermediate outputs).
> Specialized HDDs can arise as well which are optimized for whatever access
> pattern your scheme requires, and that would also outperform
> general-purpose HDDs as well.
>
> Further optimizations may also exist in an ASIC context that are not
> readily visible but which are likely to be hidden somewhere --- the more
> complicated your program design, the more likely it is that you will not
> readily see such hidden optimizations that can be achieved by ASICs (xref
> ASICBOOST).
>
> In short, even with memory-hardness, an ASIC will arise which might need
> to be connected to an array of (possibly specialized) HDDs but which will
> still outperform your general-purpose hardware connected to an array of
> general-purpose storage.
>
> Indeed, various storage solutions already have different specializations:
> SMR HDDs replace tape drives, PMR HDDs serve as caches of SMR HDDs, SSDs
> serve as caches of PMR HDDs.
> An optimized technology stack like that can outperform a generic HDD.
>
> You cannot fight the inevitability of ASICs and other specialized
> hardware, just as you cannot fight specialization.
>
> You puny humans must specialize in order to achieve the heights of your
> civilization --- I can bet you 547 satoshis that you yourself cannot farm
> your own food, you specialize in software engineering of some kind and just
> pay a farmer to harvest your food for you.
> Indeed, you probably do not pay a farmer directly, but pay an intermediary
> that specializes in packing food for transport from the farm to your
> domicile. which itself probably delegates the actual transporting to
> another specialist.
> Similarly, ASICs will arise and focus on particularly high-value fixed
> computations, inevitably.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8029 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Screenshot_2021-03-17 BoincOverview – BOINC.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 57634 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[ZmnSCPxj]

Good morning Andrew,

> I wouldn't fully discount general purpose hardware or hardware outside of the realm of ASICS. BOINC (https://cds.cern.ch/record/800111/files/p1099.pdf) implements a decent distributed computing protocol (granted it isn't a cryptocurrency), but it far computes data at a much cheaper cost compared to the competition w/ decent levels of fault tolerance. I myself am running an extremely large scale open distributed computing pipeline, and can tell you for certain that what is out there is insane. In regards to the argument of generic HDDs and CPUs, the algorithmic implementation I am providing would likely make them more adaptable. More than likely, evidently there would be specialized HDDs similar to BurstCoin Miners, and 128-core CPUs, and all that. This could be inevitable, but the main point is providing access to other forms of computation along w/ ASICs. At the very least, the generic guys can experience it, and other infrastructures can have some form of compatibility.

What would the advantage of this be?

As I see it, changing the underlying algorithm is simply an attempt to reverse history, by requiring a new strain of specialization to be started instead of continuing the trend of optimizing SHA256d very very well.

I think it may be better to push *through* rather than *back*, and instead spread the optimization of SHA256d-specific hardware so widely that anyone with 2 BTC liquidity in one location has no particular advantage over anyone with 2 BTC liquidity in another location.
For one, I expect that there will be fewer patentable surprises remaining with SHA256d than any newer, much more complicated construction.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2607 bytes --]

The advantage is simple, access to more computational opportunities means a
more scalable network and other reasons, including further options for
optimization. There are also lots of reasons to believe a huge demand of
unmet needs in this space. Why force people to mine Chia if they want to
mine BTC, and why can't highly specialized HPC clusters mine in similar
ways to many of the large ASIC farms? Like I said the design and
implementation needs to be correct for that to work, and I intended to look
towards improving the algo to get the best of both worlds. In regards to
SHA256d, that is an entirely different discussion, but even if one was to
stick to SHA256d for an hashing algo, there are still implementations of
PoW likely more adaptable.

Best regards, Andrew

On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 2:56 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com> wrote:

> Good morning Andrew,
>
> > I wouldn't fully discount general purpose hardware or hardware outside
> of the realm of ASICS. BOINC (
> https://cds.cern.ch/record/800111/files/p1099.pdf) implements a decent
> distributed computing protocol (granted it isn't a cryptocurrency), but it
> far computes data at a much cheaper cost compared to the competition w/
> decent levels of fault tolerance. I myself am running an extremely large
> scale open distributed computing pipeline, and can tell you for certain
> that what is out there is insane. In regards to the argument of generic
> HDDs and CPUs, the algorithmic implementation I am providing would likely
> make them more adaptable. More than likely, evidently there would be
> specialized HDDs similar to BurstCoin Miners, and 128-core CPUs, and all
> that. This could be inevitable, but the main point is providing access to
> other forms of computation along w/ ASICs. At the very least, the generic
> guys can experience it, and other infrastructures can have some form of
> compatibility.
>
> What would the advantage of this be?
>
> As I see it, changing the underlying algorithm is simply an attempt to
> reverse history, by requiring a new strain of specialization to be started
> instead of continuing the trend of optimizing SHA256d very very well.
>
> I think it may be better to push *through* rather than *back*, and instead
> spread the optimization of SHA256d-specific hardware so widely that anyone
> with 2 BTC liquidity in one location has no particular advantage over
> anyone with 2 BTC liquidity in another location.
> For one, I expect that there will be fewer patentable surprises remaining
> with SHA256d than any newer, much more complicated construction.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3174 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4284 bytes --]

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 <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-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

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<mailto: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 <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net<mailto: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<mailto: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.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13152 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Thomas Hartman]

MY LORD HIS EXCELLENCY:

  It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning.

  Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to
smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more
profitable.

  To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you
pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed.

  The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency,
but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular
free markets in energy.

  That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven underground.

  Your humble subject etc.





On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-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
>
> 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 <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 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

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5873 bytes --]

In regards to my BIP proposal, I finally added a bit more details to the
draft. So far an interesting discussion to say the least.

Best regards, Andrew

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 9:23 AM Thomas Hartman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> MY LORD HIS EXCELLENCY:
>
>   It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning.
>
>   Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to
> smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more
> profitable.
>
>   To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you
> pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed.
>
>   The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency,
> but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular
> free markets in energy.
>
>   That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven
> underground.
>
>   Your humble subject etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 o
>  ne 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 <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on
> behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-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
> >
> > 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 <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 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8302 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Eric Martindale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5251 bytes --]

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. <https://fabric.fm>
+1 (919) 374-2020


On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on
> behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
> bitcoin-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
>
> 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 <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 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 12653 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6827 bytes --]

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 <eric@ericmartindale.com>
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. <https://fabric.fm>
> +1 (919) 374-2020
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on
>> behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-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
>>
>> 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 <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 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
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14753 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8489 bytes --]

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 <eric@ericmartindale.com>
>> 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. <https://fabric.fm>
>>> +1 (919) 374-2020
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
>>> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <bitcoin-dev-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on
>>>> behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-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
>>>>
>>>> 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 <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 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
>>>>
>>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 17636 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Eric Voskuil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3873 bytes --]

Hi Andrew,

Do you mean that you can reduce the cost of executing the cryptography at a comparable level of security? If so this will only have the effect of increasing the amount of it that is required to consume the same cost.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Efficiency-Paradox

You mentioned a staking hybrid in your original post.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Hybrid-Mining-Fallacy

This would be a change to dynamics - the economic forces at work. Staking is not censorship resistant

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy

and is therefore what I refer to as cryptodynamically insecure.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Cryptodynamic-Principles

As such it wouldn’t likely be considered as a contribution to Bitcoin. It might of course be useful in some other context.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Shitcoin-Definition

But BIPs are proposals aimed at Bitcoin improvement.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#What_is_a_BIP

Non-staking attempts to improve energy efficiency are either proof of work in disguise, such as proof of memory:

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Memory-Fallacy

or attempts to repurpose “wasteful” computing, such as by finding prime numbers, which does not imply a reduction in dedicated energy consumption.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Dedicated-Cost-Principle

Finally, waste and renewable energy approaches at “carbon” (vs energy) reduction must still consume the same in cost as the reward. In other words, the apparent benefit represents a temporary market shift, with advantage to first movers. The market will still consume what it consumes. If the hashing energy was free all reward consumption would shift to operations.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Byproduct-Mining-Fallacy

The motivation behind these attempts is naively understandable, but based on a false premise.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Waste-Fallacy

The one thing that reduces Bitcoin energy consumption is an increase in energy cost relative to block reward.

https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Exhaustion-Fallacy

e

> On Mar 5, 2021, at 07:30, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <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 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7204 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 8778 bytes --]

Hi, Eric. Chia's network is a bad example. They go after energy consumption
in the wrong way entirely. True, it requires a comparable cost of hardware.
I am trying to tackle cryptography in a way that goes much beyond that.
Part of what I am doing includes lowering invalided proofs while trying to
get the best of both worlds in regards to PoW and PoC. It is an efficiency
issue to the core. In regards to the mechanisms of how I will do that, I
suggest you look at the entire proposal which is why I am hoping the BIP
team would be so gracious as to allow me to draft it out on GitHub.

Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 4:42 PM Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:

> How is the argument against PoM only partially true?
>
> I wrote this as soon as I saw Chia. Had two debates on Twitter with Brahm,
> before he blocked me. Two years later, after they finally realized I was
> correct, one of their PhDs contacted me and told me. Better to flesh this
> out early. They had already raised $20 and done their research, so he
> wasn’t exactly in a listening mode.
>
> e
>
> On Mar 5, 2021, at 13:20, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
> 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 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
> 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 the
> 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 first
> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
> 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 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 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 is
> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.
> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My
> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents
> 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 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 in 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-pi3s3yjl
>
> Best regards,  Andrew
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:53 PM Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Do you mean that you can reduce the cost of executing the cryptography at
>> a comparable level of security? If so this will only have the effect of
>> increasing the amount of it that is required to consume the same cost.
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Efficiency-Paradox
>>
>> You mentioned a staking hybrid in your original post.
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Hybrid-Mining-Fallacy
>>
>> This would be a change to dynamics - the economic forces at work. Staking
>> is not censorship resistant
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy
>>
>> and is therefore what I refer to as cryptodynamically insecure.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Cryptodynamic-Principles
>>
>> As such it wouldn’t likely be considered as a contribution to Bitcoin. It
>> might of course be useful in some other context.
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Shitcoin-Definition
>>
>> But BIPs are proposals aimed at Bitcoin improvement.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#What_is_a_BIP
>>
>> Non-staking attempts to improve energy efficiency are either proof of
>> work in disguise, such as proof of memory:
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Memory-Fallacy
>>
>> or attempts to repurpose “wasteful” computing, such as by finding prime
>> numbers, which does not imply a reduction in dedicated energy
>> consumption.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Dedicated-Cost-Principle
>>
>> Finally, waste and renewable energy approaches at “carbon” (vs energy)
>> reduction must still consume the same in cost as the reward. In other
>> words, the apparent benefit represents a temporary market shift, with
>> advantage to first movers. The market will still consume what it consumes.
>> If the hashing energy was free all reward consumption would shift to
>> operations.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Byproduct-Mining-Fallacy
>>
>> The motivation behind these attempts is naively understandable, but based
>> on a false premise.
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Waste-Fallacy
>>
>> The one thing that reduces Bitcoin energy consumption is an increase in
>> energy cost relative to block reward.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Exhaustion-Fallacy
>>
>> e
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 07:30, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <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 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
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13579 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Eric Voskuil]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9557 bytes --]

FYI it’s generally considered bad form repost a private thread, especially one you initiate.

...

It’s typically more effective to generate some community support before actually submitting a BIP. Otherwise the process gets easily overwhelmed. This is likely why you aren’t getting a response. You can draft the BIP in your own repo and collect feedback from interested parties.

Posting a link to your research/code is a good start. I’d be happy to look at an overview of the central principles. I’m not a cryptographer. I write code, but I look at these things from economic principles. So far all I have to go on is that you go “much beyond” Chia. That’s not really anything.

e

> On Mar 5, 2021, at 14:03, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi, Eric. Chia's network is a bad example. They go after energy consumption in the wrong way entirely. True, it requires a comparable cost of hardware. I am trying to tackle cryptography in a way that goes much beyond that. Part of what I am doing includes lowering invalided proofs while trying to get the best of both worlds in regards to PoW and PoC. It is an efficiency issue to the core. In regards to the mechanisms of how I will do that, I suggest you look at the entire proposal which is why I am hoping the BIP team would be so gracious as to allow me to draft it out on GitHub.
> 
> Best regards, Andrew
> 
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 4:42 PM Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>> How is the argument against PoM only partially true?
>> 
>> I wrote this as soon as I saw Chia. Had two debates on Twitter with Brahm, before he blocked me. Two years later, after they finally realized I was correct, one of their PhDs contacted me and told me. Better to flesh this out early. They had already raised $20 and done their research, so he wasn’t exactly in a listening mode.
>> 
>> e
>> 
>>>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 13:20, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> 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 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 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 the 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 first version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such 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 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 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 is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents 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 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 in 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-pi3s3yjl
>>> 
>>> Best regards,  Andrew
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:53 PM Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>> 
>>>> Do you mean that you can reduce the cost of executing the cryptography at a comparable level of security? If so this will only have the effect of increasing the amount of it that is required to consume the same cost.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Efficiency-Paradox
>>>> 
>>>> You mentioned a staking hybrid in your original post.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Hybrid-Mining-Fallacy
>>>> 
>>>> This would be a change to dynamics - the economic forces at work. Staking is not censorship resistant
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy
>>>> 
>>>> and is therefore what I refer to as cryptodynamically insecure.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Cryptodynamic-Principles
>>>> 
>>>> As such it wouldn’t likely be considered as a contribution to Bitcoin. It might of course be useful in some other context.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Shitcoin-Definition
>>>> 
>>>> But BIPs are proposals aimed at Bitcoin improvement.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#What_is_a_BIP
>>>> 
>>>> Non-staking attempts to improve energy efficiency are either proof of work in disguise, such as proof of memory:
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Memory-Fallacy
>>>> 
>>>> or attempts to repurpose “wasteful” computing, such as by finding prime numbers, which does not imply a reduction in dedicated energy consumption.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Dedicated-Cost-Principle
>>>> 
>>>> Finally, waste and renewable energy approaches at “carbon” (vs energy) reduction must still consume the same in cost as the reward. In other words, the apparent benefit represents a temporary market shift, with advantage to first movers. The market will still consume what it consumes. If the hashing energy was free all reward consumption would shift to operations.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Byproduct-Mining-Fallacy
>>>> 
>>>> The motivation behind these attempts is naively understandable, but based on a false premise.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Waste-Fallacy
>>>> 
>>>> The one thing that reduces Bitcoin energy consumption is an increase in energy cost relative to block reward.
>>>> 
>>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Exhaustion-Fallacy
>>>> 
>>>> e
>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 07:30, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <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 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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 15311 bytes --]

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

[Lonero Foundation]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10750 bytes --]

Hi, in regards to my research this is just one of my patents:
https://patents.google.com/patent/CN110825707A
This isn't related to this proposal but gives you a general depth of
understanding in regards to the technology and field I'm working on in
reducing redundancy and efficiency. You aren't a cryptographer, but there
are easy ways to validate my proposal if it was to be made. In regards to
popularity, many people have wanted to upgrade BTC's cryptography in a
similar manner. I believe it is at the very least a topic of interest to
you and others in the community. I would like to draft it out. Lastly, I
wasn't sure if you wanted to create a private thread or meant reply all so
that is my fault. The recent reply is to the BTC Dev list so I wanted to
provide my insight in regards to your inquiry.

Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 5:50 PM Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:

> FYI it’s generally considered bad form repost a private thread, especially
> one you initiate.
>
> ...
>
> It’s typically more effective to generate some community support before
> actually submitting a BIP. Otherwise the process gets easily overwhelmed.
> This is likely why you aren’t getting a response. You can draft the BIP in
> your own repo and collect feedback from interested parties.
>
> Posting a link to your research/code is a good start. I’d be happy to look
> at an overview of the central principles. I’m not a cryptographer. I write
> code, but I look at these things from economic principles. So far all I
> have to go on is that you go “much beyond” Chia. That’s not really anything.
>
> e
>
> On Mar 5, 2021, at 14:03, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi, Eric. Chia's network is a bad example. They go after energy
> consumption in the wrong way entirely. True, it requires a comparable cost
> of hardware. I am trying to tackle cryptography in a way that goes much
> beyond that. Part of what I am doing includes lowering invalided proofs
> while trying to get the best of both worlds in regards to PoW and PoC. It
> is an efficiency issue to the core. In regards to the mechanisms of how I
> will do that, I suggest you look at the entire proposal which is why I am
> hoping the BIP team would be so gracious as to allow me to draft it out on
> GitHub.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 4:42 PM Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>
>> How is the argument against PoM only partially true?
>>
>> I wrote this as soon as I saw Chia. Had two debates on Twitter with
>> Brahm, before he blocked me. Two years later, after they finally realized I
>> was correct, one of their PhDs contacted me and told me. Better to flesh
>> this out early. They had already raised $20 and done their research, so he
>> wasn’t exactly in a listening mode.
>>
>> e
>>
>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 13:20, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>
>> 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 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
>> 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 the
>> 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 first
>> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such
>> 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 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 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 is
>> beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.
>> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My
>> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents
>> 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 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 in 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-pi3s3yjl
>>
>> Best regards,  Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:53 PM Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>>
>>> Do you mean that you can reduce the cost of executing the cryptography
>>> at a comparable level of security? If so this will only have the effect of
>>> increasing the amount of it that is required to consume the same cost.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Efficiency-Paradox
>>>
>>> You mentioned a staking hybrid in your original post.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Hybrid-Mining-Fallacy
>>>
>>> This would be a change to dynamics - the economic forces at work.
>>> Staking is not censorship resistant
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy
>>>
>>> and is therefore what I refer to as cryptodynamically insecure.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Cryptodynamic-Principles
>>>
>>> As such it wouldn’t likely be considered as a contribution to Bitcoin.
>>> It might of course be useful in some other context.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Shitcoin-Definition
>>>
>>> But BIPs are proposals aimed at Bitcoin improvement.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#What_is_a_BIP
>>>
>>> Non-staking attempts to improve energy efficiency are either proof of
>>> work in disguise, such as proof of memory:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Memory-Fallacy
>>>
>>> or attempts to repurpose “wasteful” computing, such as by finding prime
>>> numbers, which does not imply a reduction in dedicated energy
>>> consumption.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Dedicated-Cost-Principle
>>>
>>> Finally, waste and renewable energy approaches at “carbon” (vs energy)
>>> reduction must still consume the same in cost as the reward. In other
>>> words, the apparent benefit represents a temporary market shift, with
>>> advantage to first movers. The market will still consume what it consumes.
>>> If the hashing energy was free all reward consumption would shift to
>>> operations.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Byproduct-Mining-Fallacy
>>>
>>> The motivation behind these attempts is naively understandable, but
>>> based on a false premise.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Waste-Fallacy
>>>
>>> The one thing that reduces Bitcoin energy consumption is an increase in
>>> energy cost relative to block reward.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Exhaustion-Fallacy
>>>
>>> e
>>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 07:30, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <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 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
>>>
>>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 16637 bytes --]