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 B0AF5C0001 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF2A40494 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=powx-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com 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 7aTotUW4w-7e for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-qk1-x732.google.com (mail-qk1-x732.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::732]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C0D740487 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk1-x732.google.com with SMTP id v8so8814087qkv.1 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 03:59:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=powx-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:subject:date:message-id :references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=lBc3eqcWuaZMrVolS+HrTa7DMT0evmU3kUeg8qwhMEY=; b=tW4N0Y+DxxBn7gFd5M1ogqqHom/O1XtHKNx5FaSjhOwpaJtU15VWsCkP3qB5lCUe1j jBV/L19y74LP1VrIDx0L+2uwwbzXMCcve9U5OrAu4XwfJzLnMdh8wUmFh+n42zkdp08v xISLBIotJ+fdt/dRqBUSBcX7ijgwtlYXSkClGGEfeTnrKSEVDkAhvxPPmxwsbzijcdjG sDL+LvOVZRHOt/QF5WvAu+fexFFS+RAcSQKMH+qCDMc+p7j9ZcitLaqdWnyd2slL3cKP dngG3y3m7gUcqJ8gAD76qxg3JwObov8A9qFEhCPtgK1DAVnBgzALxGcQfPHGtwr6mW38 4Gqw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version :subject:date:message-id:references:cc:in-reply-to:to; bh=lBc3eqcWuaZMrVolS+HrTa7DMT0evmU3kUeg8qwhMEY=; b=Z7Udn0eyn8MzvAYsVy5B/d9zIUuLb0ks5azPiMQu3a/r/9qiHUnFA+M5uKywoy2K2R UMLR6pWXjlKYjCZxGDNCN6i7MJXb6e29hUHWvSv2J0b0UeELaqNfL1YOD4SJMjeptu1E e2KjPdsfBXPCvtkf52fYrsttTCODWf3zhQJuDwMJu52u6yOjokF/AsyZX8zAaVzaiF4j TcNDndPbDWSd0NotrQYcBYB1Deo4tBMi+u1P5FnOdXW4QSiHD1Rpa4RbrIUyvLV7R0XT fJsg5l8yLtGWm/peX1G0nwsZIKTGp6sltQotnV9095ezK/a+uA0evGzL0I5rlNB1F4T/ FqzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530tZWI6Z1+ssh26TlzfNpSnoS31tSFpIBFTd9363QEk67yufd0R iMytuJ67Em+aILbmloOTlzOey7IjmVMq8A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQ4kBkZ383TCUwcWwZ3QUb29QOinn4GnK2kA8OHBFmkfqkpK/ZYXtXelkMKSTOmUnk59rqeA== X-Received: by 2002:ae9:c010:: with SMTP id u16mr4689005qkk.133.1621335586902; Tue, 18 May 2021 03:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2607:fb90:6827:242b:154:8df4:2b09:2c03? ([2607:fb90:6827:242b:154:8df4:2b09:2c03]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f19sm12887979qkg.70.2021.05.18.03.59.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 May 2021 03:59:46 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-913FE5AB-5736-465E-9925-31D09C0EF831 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: mike@powx.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 06:59:46 -0400 Message-Id: References: In-Reply-To: To: Devrandom X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18D70) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:24:16 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Low Energy Bitcoin PoW 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: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:59:49 -0000 --Apple-Mail-913FE5AB-5736-465E-9925-31D09C0EF831 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Devrandom is correct to point out that there is nuance to these things and i= t=E2=80=99s better to look at the details rather than proclaiming that PoW i= s PoW. (I do agree though w the original point that other ideas often turn o= ut to reduce to PoW despite their convoluted architecture) A note on the key difference between hardware and energy as it relates to ce= ntralization: Hardware is easily transferable. If you have low electricity costs, Bitcoin A= SICS need to be physically located in proximity to use it. You can=E2=80=99t= sell your low power costs on an open liquid market (you can sell your hash r= ate but that still requires all the miners next to the power plant). Hardwar= e can be sold online freely to anyone anywhere in the world. If a small number of foundries are producing low energy opow hardware (just a= s there are a small number producing SHA256 ASICS- in fact it would be the s= ame set foundries, somewhat expanded because optical chips use larger, older= nodes... for example Global Foundries has a great photonics process at 90nm= ), they can (and will) still sell the hardware to people all over the world.= =20 There is a huge latent demand for BTC mining. Many people currently buying a= lt coins or even BTC would prefer to invest in mining if they could turn a p= rofit despite their high energy cost. Another clear benefit would be the difficulty of detecting and controlling l= ow energy mining relative to the ASIC-warehouse-next-to-waterfall model used= today. You can=E2=80=99t move a waterfall if the local government decides t= o regulate you. Just some thoughts.=20 Sent from my iPhone > On May 18, 2021, at 5:18 AM, Devrandom wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj: >>=20 >> When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects= until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you w= ill realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway. >=20 > Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalities. T= he whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externalities relate= d to energy production. >=20 > Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construction, productio= n) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, we should be interes= ted in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types of CAPEX. >=20 > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:20 PM Keagan McClelland wrote: >=20 >> First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the chip manufact= uring process, rather than eliminating it. And it may trade some marginal am= ount of the energy consumption for the set of resources it takes to educate a= nd create chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that cost being funneled= back into more energy consumption [...] >=20 > I challenge you to substantiate these assertions. Real-estate and human c= ognitive work are not energy intensive and are a major factor in the expecte= d costs of some alternative PoWs. The expected mining effort is such that t= he cost will reach the expected reward, no more, so there is every reason to= believe that energy consumption will be small compared to the current PoW. >=20 > Therefore, the total associated negative externalities for the alternative= PoWs may well be much lower than the externalities of energy production. T= his needs detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction. >=20 --Apple-Mail-913FE5AB-5736-465E-9925-31D09C0EF831 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Devrandom is correct to point out that there i= s nuance to these things and it=E2=80=99s better to look at the details rath= er than proclaiming that PoW is PoW. (I do agree though w the original point= that other ideas often turn out to reduce to PoW despite their convoluted a= rchitecture)

A note on the key difference between h= ardware and energy as it relates to centralization:

Hardware is easily transferable. If you have= low electricity costs, Bitcoin ASICS need to be physically located in proxi= mity to use it. You can=E2=80=99t sell your low power costs on an open liqui= d market (you can sell your hash rate but that still requires all the miners= next to the power plant). = Hardware can be sold online freely to anyone anywhere in the world.

If a small number of foundries are producing low energy opow hardware (ju= st as there are a small number producing SHA256 ASICS- in fact it would be t= he same set foundries, somewhat expanded because optical chips use larger, o= lder nodes... for example Global Foundries has a great photonics process at 9= 0nm), they can (and will) still sell the hardware to people all over the wor= ld. 

There is a huge latent demand for BTC mining. Many peop= le currently buying alt coins or even BTC would prefer to invest in mining i= f they could turn a profit despite their high energy cost.
=
Anothe= r clear benefit would be the difficulty of detecting and controlling low ene= rgy mining relative to the ASIC-warehouse-next-to-waterfall model used today= . You can=E2=80=99t move a waterfall if the local government decides to regu= late you.

Just some thoughts. 



Sent= from my iPhone

On May 18, 2021, at 5:= 18 AM, Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox.net> wrote:

=EF=BB=BF
<= font color=3D"#000000">On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:
=

When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects un= til you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you will= realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.

Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalitie= s.  The whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externalit= ies related to energy production.

Depending on the details, C= APEX (R&D, real-estate, construction, production) may have less external= ities, and if that's the case, we should be interested in adopting a PoW tha= t is intensive in these types of CAPEX.

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2= :20 PM Keagan McClelland wrote:
First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the c= hip manufacturing process, rather than eliminating it. And it may trade some= marginal amount of the energy consumption for the set of resources it takes= to educate and create chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that cost b= eing funneled back into more energy consumption [...]

I challenge you to substantiate these assertions.  Real-estate and hu= man cognitive work are not energy intensive and are a major factor in the ex= pected costs of some alternative PoWs.  The expected mining effort is s= uch that the cost will reach the expected reward, no more, so there is every= reason to believe that energy consumption will be small compared to the cur= rent PoW.

Therefore, the total associated negative externalit= ies for the alternative PoWs may well be much lower than the externalities o= f energy production.  This needs detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk rea= ction.

= --Apple-Mail-913FE5AB-5736-465E-9925-31D09C0EF831--