From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 491DDC0001 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D5E6405BD for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no 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 Qir0A9kZRmGP for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-ej1-f45.google.com (mail-ej1-f45.google.com [209.85.218.45]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81726405B9 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 09:18:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f45.google.com with SMTP id lg14so13430056ejb.9 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:37 -0700 (PDT) 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=yQIb0oUwrd5dlBKz35dU2GDIUwrIUBtfFUV6YIH9SZs=; b=Cu1rzLBi0qiMH1/obwzW860bN/XNY4cyIprJhiUgysrVHzHCD8G50eD+2J9ekeLSQS kAFhfeHnFLRgLnLynur6DJESNJySsQTCB+u27ooBt4r32ghV+0n7FhfgSD02QeIDaxXT CCloZzTjJ0jRNpVipirKUE3ev5/laJLMfQO3L8QbPuUOrmPFvXO4r2cNNDHSzp+vXhyj /EVKEH6shImMC2P2fVULIlLClFwDf7aw2fawS6GYOhMUQkBWT2Xgit1GlqBCXhi97DL1 5WU4Qhcd4GDh8bAKuWW9VEOoQXFCgdmlO2icxaUZSl3Sq2yGTi9urpoRSQ047C4AgkZu REgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GxsBUOTI94ok2uraTmy9TH251El6cfU08HrTGh7jiXGINiDr8 p89tIolAFwAR28AzAxcEMLyivUsLLGXFmS9KLOluqQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzSk6KroHlAtfsngFVWoI3R6B1gU6GZH9ZLNsZhK2HaKw2QOXytBsWTS7MGPA0f7QsRExDFV4Sm13VC7q7psM4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:ad9a:: with SMTP id la26mr5135485ejb.122.1621329516413; Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Devrandom Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:24 -0700 Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e3d60a05c2973118" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2021 09:52:40 +0000 Cc: Michael Dubrovsky 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 09:18:40 -0000 --000000000000e3d60a05c2973118 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj: > > 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 > will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway. > Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalities. The whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externalities related to energy production. Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construction, production) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, we should be interested in adopting a PoW that 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 chip > 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 > being funneled back into more energy consumption [...] > I challenge you to substantiate these assertions. Real-estate and human cognitive work are not energy intensive and are a major factor in the expected costs of some alternative PoWs. The expected mining effort is such 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 current PoW. Therefore, the total associated negative externalities for the alternative PoWs may well be much lower than the externalities of energy production. This needs detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction. --000000000000e3d60a05c2973118 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, May 17, 2021= at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:

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

Let's not simplify away economic considerations= , such as externalities.=C2=A0 The whole debate about the current PoW is ab= out negative externalities related to energy production.

=
Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construct= ion, production) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, w= e should be interested in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types o= f CAPEX.

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:20 PM Keagan Mc= Clelland wrote:

First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the= chip manufacturing process, rather than eliminating it. And it may trade s= ome marginal amount of the energy consumption for the set of resources it t= akes to educate and create chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that c= ost being funneled back into more energy consumption [...]

I challenge you to substantiate these assertions.=C2= =A0 Real-estate and human cognitive work are not energy intensive and are a= major factor in the expected costs of some alternative PoWs.=C2=A0 The exp= ected mining effort is such that the cost will reach the expected reward, n= o more, so there is every reason to believe that energy consumption will be= small compared to the current PoW.

Therefore,= the total associated negative externalities for the alternative PoWs may w= ell be much lower than the externalities of energy production.=C2=A0 This n= eeds detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction.

<= /div>
--000000000000e3d60a05c2973118--