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

[Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com>]

[-- 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 --]