From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF96BC0001 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 05:18:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D84524034C for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 05:18:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.336 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_PBL=3.335, RCVD_IN_RP_RNBL=1.31, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cock.li Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Vrj1VtN-yhqw for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 05:17:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail.cock.li (unknown [37.120.193.122]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDF40403F8 for ; Mon, 17 May 2021 05:17:58 +0000 (UTC) MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cock.li; s=mail; t=1621228674; bh=UCEtTm/Z8F5wgpikVKWY+nYjNremlf7Ysd/Idb1v0xo=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=z4kEOnQHq3Ay2hWgYMuOIuvtl0dH/aJLNKtp6QzDhOaDBFGE7Qrgin+0IX0XRU/MV 6ySj3dIn2zNgfbTA5RDIqa0YHxbZj+5F8fQq1tdaKpzJe0b0c029Xay77+EUWkPgZX Ila/GRi6Z/9LWq8HyBHYaCiSoyi/OWSCcA8egZDqyOJbFxPqcbrczVfJXTHlEMRcsU GvUEyK4vobHcOa0VAc26syxDAGsEXB7xS7feogwSe6C1JibeGlMJz1AGO262T/f8Gz HXxLBaORNdt4brFsUhBxtHgoUdZbU0AEo2xvs6rEDJMsz5fU+95NdjpCdj+B8GRoIS ZOQ6bedIhNXYQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 05:17:54 +0000 From: yanmaani@cock.li To: Michael Fuhrmann , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b26e45240fad320b3ee584551223455@cock.li> X-Sender: yanmaani@cock.li User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.15 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 May 2021 07:44:08 +0000 Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Force to do nothing for first 9 minutes to save 90% of mining energy X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 05:18:04 -0000 This is silly, but I'll add my take: This would create the incentive to have chips that are idle 50% of the time and work harder 50% of the time. This means miners would buy twice the chips to use the same amount of power, for example. This in turn means a greater portion of your operational costs are spent on chips, and a smaller portion on electricity, reducing the incentive to use cheaper power and turn off when it's expensive, because you need to recoup your investment. That seems like a bad thing. Here's my proposal: if you want a PoW algorithm that's better for the environment, make one where the chips are easier to manufacture, so power costs become a greater portion of miner expenditures. Maybe SIMON/SPECK would do it. It could also incentivize someone to find that NSA backdoor... On 2021-05-14 21:41, Michael Fuhrmann via bitcoin-dev wrote: > Hello, > > Bitcoin should create blocks every 10 minutes in average. So why do > miners need to mine the 9 minutes after the last block was found? It's > not necessary. > > Problem: How to prevent "pre-mining" in the 9 minutes time window? > > Possible ideas for discussion: > > - (maybe most difficult) global network timer sending a salted hash > time > code after 9 minutes. this enables validation by nodes. > > - (easy attempt) mining jobs before 9 minutes have a 10 (or 100 or just > high enough) times higher difficulty. so everyone can mine any time but > before to 9 minutes are up there will be a too high downside. It is > more > efficient to wait then paying high bills. The bitcoin will get a > "puls". > > > I dont think I see all problems behind these ideas but if there is a > working solution to do so then the energy fud will find it's end. > Saving > energy without loosing rosbustness. > > > > :) > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev