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 E8FFAC0001 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDFC5400A4 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 LUJttSKAf0YS for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-yb1-xb30.google.com (mail-yb1-xb30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b30]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03CA0444E5 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yb1-xb30.google.com with SMTP id f145so10654336ybg.11 for ; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:21:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Le1rcUYiDL2AfC8LPODDzEIp5m9utpJm6Y7a4MMQNB0=; b=FAWJNxUD1nia/b42jEseOgm46tpGZpC7Q7Xd6qmE5+n93PHehuZBxRp8173atVOOMk slbmS2msxsyPOvD8kfBGBHvC/PMXt0ES4zCYLQYazgyyV1PlJk/U+SV7IwxDFPDdudci 3g4c+enLeY+TYT5gXupvrqLeLESlry8iThOq6kMoRd51Ne65qVg5XQWHEgngSM5pXjeS QvPJ0gdM7cWAOUvd+Vu+Arit+bCotp7QonbpEA+hB4ygEs0IPw6pQOcLWVISweH7zmVw wsIGyLErG+IDbZ2Fjr05hlpC2YdGbFM8adsZkjpmDtc8ydCZnrIDD99hksRqTk4lN1SX Wm3w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Le1rcUYiDL2AfC8LPODDzEIp5m9utpJm6Y7a4MMQNB0=; b=CdyJ608gruViv3fOHu6Vny5yCxNDckYZhfGpFQUObK5K/OnicHyOLEmw3P3OuUO+uo M5gysHbOdocejFpgBzzwY/pfNIKAvX9B8H3YIZcd0DbzxOMbllcU3HdB4hXkHvLphZb1 aaALGm1WlIsWlYnHXYmSL0GyT8fvi3oZFbZXkODe/550ulAivITzvHIRF2d4nexhRq9+ G1j0ov/peAvq1tFvoKOzvzQa4VWCLkBKRKQ7j2LQsfxFqKeisQg3m90EztCy4cS7mBnh m8QSwHOj4KBUuHrrnhSeefJVP94OLm3815ooVuNZXvQ45b5o13WJRpVku91vLHi3nCth GF5A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Tx5KoHAuc4WZwIri7NLxRvEzqLqilvsJlP7wBJpr9llNYn0tQ Tb2Q3imf5MdYu8TQYWSHt/QpQDE6ZzGdautJWjY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxA6eXDgRitQROtWQPfC+r3TxHaTw/O/nnjFXkXAQmu+49sDUidBcx4Z5zWgaW8X/CEV3QW9CjiHq/mqmE85bU= X-Received: by 2002:a25:ae14:: with SMTP id a20mr23715460ybj.129.1615591307812; Fri, 12 Mar 2021 15:21:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3d65-604bed00-17d-6093c680@171273340> In-Reply-To: <3d65-604bed00-17d-6093c680@171273340> From: Lonero Foundation Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:21:36 -0500 Message-ID: To: "email@yancy.lol" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000001255805bd5f2a53" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 13 Mar 2021 22:53:20 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining 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: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 23:21:52 -0000 --00000000000001255805bd5f2a53 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft, I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to working on technological implementation. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol wrote: > I think Andrew himself is an algo. The crypto training set must not be > very good. > > Cheers, > -Yancy > > On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > 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 statu= s. > > 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 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=3D225690.0 >> >> 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 >> 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.medi= awiki >> >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draf= t >> mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I w= ant >> 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 doin= g >> 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 reposito= ry >> >>>> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a P= R >> >>>> >> >>>> Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev >> >>>> escreveu no dia s=C3=A1bado= , >> >>>> 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(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. Ha= d >> 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 wa= s >> in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BI= P >> 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 wa= y >> 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 accidental= ly >> 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 an= d >> non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit fro= m 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 m= ore >> commonly used then PoST. >> >>>> >>> There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Proo= f >> 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. Ther= e >> 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 t= he >> cryptography community attempted to propose. The actual argument you hav= e >> only against this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partiall= y >> true. Given how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocat= ion >> 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 Bitcoi= n'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 firs= t >> version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating suc= h >> complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or minor upgrade to i= ts >> chain. >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> In regards to the argument, "As a separate issue, proposing a >> hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount o= f >> 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 fro= m 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 decentralize= d. >> It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. = My >> goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that preven= ts >> 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 pro= of >> 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 stakin= g. >> >>>> >>> >> https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-sto= p-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 w= ork >> was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake whe= n >> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block constructio= n >> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different >> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrade= s >> 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 minin= g >> 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 mo= re >> 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 wher= e >> they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest in deciding what t= he >> 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 wrote: >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that m= y >> cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tack= les >> 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 s= uch >> as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the v= ery >> least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does a= t >> least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, jus= t >> 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 regard= s >> to renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get t= he >> most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrarine= ss >> 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-de= v >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> >>> 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 > > > > > --00000000000001255805bd5f2a53 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn&#= 39;t just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or= SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than= replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards = to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe = lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological imp= lementation, once this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to c= reate preprints explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements= , and consensus that I am working on. This is a highly technologically comp= lex idea that I am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon.= As for it being a draft, I think this is a good starting point at least fo= r draft status prior to working on technological implementation.
=
Best regards, Andrew

On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 P= M email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
I think Andrew himself is an algo.=C2=A0 T= he crypto training set must not be very good.

Cheers,
-Yancy
<= br>On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev &= lt;bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
=C2=A0
Hi, I awkwardly phrased that pa= rt, I was referring to key validation in relation to that section as well a= s the hashing related to those keys. I might rephrase it.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
In regards to technical merit, the main= purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BI= P 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 u= pgrading to final status.
=C2=A0
This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am person= ally looking into developing as a hard fork.
=C2=A0<= /div>
Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigne= d a number to references I do at the very least hope to describe various pa= rts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.<= /div>
=C2=A0
Best regards, Andrew
=C2=A0
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32.com> wrote:
secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.= =C2=A0 =C2=A0your BIP needs about 10 more pages
and some degree of techn= ical merit.

i suggest you start here:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3D225690.0

p= roof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work.=C2=A0 =C2=A0i alwayssuspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
equivalent= .=C2=A0 =C2=A0you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
burn= ed, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.

- erik<= br>
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrot= e:
>
> Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084
><= br>> Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/refere= nce implementation.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On= Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation= @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi, here is the list to t= he BIP proposal on my own repo: https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/ma= in/bip-draft.mediawiki
>> Can I submit a pull request on the B= IPs repo for this to go into draft mode? Also, I think this provides at lea= st some more insight on what I want to work on.
>>
>> Bes= t regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lon= ero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
&= gt;>>
>>> [off-list]
>>>
>>> Okay= . I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing a pull re= quest on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it.
>>>
&g= t;>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar= 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail.com&= gt; 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
>>>&= gt; <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> es= creveu no dia s=C3=A1bado,
>>>> 6/03/2021 =C3=A0(s) 08:58:>>>> >
>>>> > I know Ethereum had an out= landishly 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 ta= ke 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 upgr= ade I am proposing, as this was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point.=
>>>> >
>>>> > That said, I think the b= est way to move forward is to submit a BIP pull request for a draft via Git= Hub using BIP #2's draft format and any questions people have can be an= swered 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 t= o offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bitcoin-dev befor= e doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since people want to see the draft b= eforehand and it isn't merged manually anyways, I think it is the easie= st way to handle this.
>>>> >
>>>> > I&= #39;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 impolit= ely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already established= some interest for at least a draft.
>>>> >
>>&g= t;> > Does that seem fine?
>>>> >
>>>&g= t; > Best regards, Andrew
>>>> >
>>>> &= gt; On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mccl= elland@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>= ;> >> > A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS ser= vers and non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benef= it from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner would= n't disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
>= >>> >>
>>>> >> My instincts tell me tha= t this is an outlandish claim. Do you have supporting evidence for this?>>>> >>
>>>> >> Keagan
>>&= gt;> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 P= M Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@list= s.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>
&g= t;>>> >>> Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time = hybrid which is much different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusio= n 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 bee= n done though given the technological complexity of being both CPU compatib= le and memory-hard compatible. There are lots of benefits outside of the re= alm of efficiency, and I already looked into numerous fault tolerant design= s as well and what others in the cryptography community attempted to propos= e. The actual argument you have only against this is the Proof of Memory fa= llacy, which is only partially true. Given how the current hashing algorith= m 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 hyb= rid mechanism that fixes that. BTW: The way Bitcoin currently stands in its= cryptography still needs updating regardless. If someone figures out NP ha= rdness 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 has= hing algo in the future regardless. I want to integrate some form of NP com= plexity in regards to the hybrid cryptography I'm aiming to provide whi= ch includes a polynomial time algorithm in the cryptography. More than like= ly the first version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integ= rating such complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or minor upg= rade 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 e= xpenditure into mining hardware that may compute these more "useful&qu= ot; proofs of work."
>>>> >>>
>>>&= gt; >>> A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS server= s 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&#= 39;t disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
>>= ;>> >>>
>>>> >>> There are other rea= sons why a cryptography upgrade like this is beneficial. Theoretically one = can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathema= tical proofs away from being entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency= is to build cryptography in a way that prevents such an event from happeni= ng in the future, if it was to ever happen. I have various research in rega= rds 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 bu= ild the cryptographic proof myself (though would like as many open source c= ontributors as I can get :)
>>>> >>>
>>>= ;> >>> Anyways just something to consider. We are in the same s= pace in regards to what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against s= taking.
>>>> >>> https://hackern= oon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-= you-arent-pi3s3yjl
>>>> >>>
>>>>= >>> Best regards,=C2=A0 Andrew
>>>> >>>>>>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McCle= lland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
>>&g= t;> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It is importan= t 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 p= rovides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitting a pro= of 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 w= ould have been done anyway. This actually degrades the security of the netw= ork in the process.
>>>> >>>>
>>>>= ; >>>> As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashin= g algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by m= ining entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining ha= rdware 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 bit= coin 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 Bit= coin network worse off.
>>>> >>>>
>>>= ;> >>>> Keagan
>>>> >>>>
>&= gt;>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundati= on via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation= .org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>= ;> >>>>> Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to i= terate that my cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category b= ut also tackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is someth= ing the BTC network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simpl= icity, I do want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in re= gards to this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If th= ings such as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel a= t the very least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptograph= y does at least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my B= IP, just let me know on the preferred format?
>>>> >>&= gt;>>
>>>> >>>>> Best regards, Andrew>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>= ;> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation <loneroas= sociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>= >
>>>> >>>>>> Hi, this isn't about = the energy efficient argument in regards to renewables or mining devices bu= t a better cryptography layer to get the most out of your hashing for valid= ation. I do understand the arbitrariness of it, but do want to still propos= e a document. Do I use the Media Wiki format on GitHub and just attach it a= s my proposal?
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>= > >>>>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>> >= >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, M= ar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net>= wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>= ; >>>>>>> Hi Ryan and Andrew,
>>>> >= >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> O= n Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>&g= t; >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>= ;>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>=C2=A0 = =C2=A0https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-ch= eapest/
>>>> >>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 =C2=A0"Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work"
>>>= > >>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on | 04 Aug 2015>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >= ;>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> = Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining market w= ill tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.=C2=A0 It does not = prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.
>>= ;>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>= >>> Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative external= ities and that we should move to other resources.=C2=A0 I would argue that = the negative externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewab= les, so the point is likely moot.
>>>> >>>>>&= gt;>
>>>> >>>>> __________________________= _____________________
>>>> >>>>> bitcoin-dev = mailing list
>>>> >>>>> bi= tcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> >>>>= ;> https://lists.linuxfo= undation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>> >>&= gt;
>>>> >>> ______________________________________= _________
>>>> >>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>= >>> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundat= ion.org
>>>> >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoi= n-dev
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________= ________________________________
>>>> > bitcoin-dev maili= ng list
>>>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linux= foundation.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



=C2=A0
--00000000000001255805bd5f2a53--