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doesn't redesign the way Bitcoin is structured or its system, rather it focuses on improvement or replacing what is outdated, and making it more resistant to centralization, forced monopolization or an attack.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.
+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
and other projects
 


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