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.