From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [IPv6:2605:bc80:3010::136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50E43C000A for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2425360688 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:24:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.389 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qy8NVJDTueES for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:24:47 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pj1-x102f.google.com (mail-pj1-x102f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102f]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A44C605E8 for ; Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-x102f.google.com with SMTP id cl21-20020a17090af695b02900c61ac0f0e9so4411248pjb.1 for ; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:24:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=q32-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=fFAFjveHcB8rv41Xg8jJTgkDg523TH2W/4pLVa1oQmI=; b=a5y6rF52cOBxRajP0XxIYjDbkOpxzCHawkRBtZ2H0R315YK++pWBGKURrdFiPsfYKG mnOfkmmnMEUz2nZz/kUt5KeRq8SaJYYB+3f4YehcGdWSBDLtAUotXhlFRf0DG3JjUrXx lyy6sSLYprB8mh7C+h4ExPPM7VcmDlR+GVTLhfOXsBWs8K2/O93Zqibavu2dBdHOefk7 LuZTxOq1Y5AFja3R4RjYscPYGM1QVNQa9A33jE94jgZi1d9oZ1zpFIoTUkU+Pdl/wdEQ P1+W4tB/16u6kT8gm/sZfi9fdMXUcrwJRuqpUHe4S8sIAkv6mk/ChD7S9cHPuJ1ZjLkq Uj7A== 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=fFAFjveHcB8rv41Xg8jJTgkDg523TH2W/4pLVa1oQmI=; b=SNoj5iT9bvXuDlxYF7sON6U7Q4UlMWseeU/JPAAYtuX8zYVvLhetWR33v3xRfowfGH KE/10ijaNdkhykVWboEw4VC2sX4kSqJVqDWu2RwcxTGmye0yrQaxEyinN+quWAMPyipS 6RSMVhQ2XWI0MjhgL0gOkY6DKtfPrLT9NU22T9S0r6dhBgz4K5WcTwEBGOkkBDEaMYGv Sp4teksO0cU+pt3RbG0hEZURTpQWC9NAQebZ6vf17dVvSu2DQLGEE2bhyoq0dPzTbNpt 8tJygsLPkpuyAZFbZTdhtPB/LKEmkr4rLqrek/VPqsDA3zb7d315hsKSSpApyoegShfv 3y9g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531dbxgoPHctTVdaq3VqRHIRpXOKnw3iU6TiaqnhqQwHKFQRQEMi qoEmwrXBofmTm7WQ+lsZFAJ3bpXxIg0lBqDWNWmLOkM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzzoPvUF1byhp7MCNnRHqnQ8Q7jQIlPDa83ptXfFN9MJA8Aixd8dKTobAAmX57/rbxWeu6vQ+vkZQLUVw/nZpM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:aa0a:b029:e4:c090:ad76 with SMTP id be10-20020a170902aa0ab02900e4c090ad76mr1919518plb.2.1615940686738; Tue, 16 Mar 2021 17:24:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1802-604c7400-4d1-7b635e80@91248813> In-Reply-To: From: Erik Aronesty Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:24:35 -0400 Message-ID: To: Lonero Foundation Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009c7a7105bdb0820d" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 01:02:26 +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: Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:24:50 -0000 --0000000000009c7a7105bdb0820d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Any proposed hard fork will wind up being some sort of Bitcoin sv thing no matter what you propose or no matter how awesome it is they'll be many people in the community who would prefer to continue business as usual. which I'd like to point out seems to be working very, very well. so you should go into it with open eyes and start a fork right from the get-go. This is why I'm a fan of proof of burn. you can also use burned main chain as a way of mining on the new chain. the interesting thing is that you can calculate proof of work equivalence in a meaningful way if you use Bitcoin as a reference, and the total mined supply of the new coin, as another reference point. That would enable you to switch it entirely to burned coins as a proxy for proof of work, and enable people who have Bitcoin to meaningfully participate in the new network. On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:02 AM Lonero Foundation < loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm an= d > key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetri= c > cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a > different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,",= I > should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are = a > few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to > not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but > enough with the sarcasm. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy.lol wrote: > >> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like >> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as >> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you >> were a bot spamming the list. >> >> >> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? >> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At wh= at >> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have >> lost the war to our new centralized overlord? >> >> Cheers, >> -Yancy >> >> >> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation >> cryptography in that aspect: >> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-b= ook/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html >> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs >> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs fo= r. >> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer >> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After a= ll >> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develo= p a >> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a >> repository and call it a day. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 poin= t in >>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or create= s 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 cha= nges >>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, onc= e >>> this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprint= s >>> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consen= sus >>> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea tha= t I >>> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a dra= ft, >>> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior t= o >>> 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 b= e >>>> 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 i= n >>>> 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 referenc= es >>>> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final st= atus. >>>> >>>> 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 th= e >>>> 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.m= ediawiki >>>>> >> 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 >>>>> >>>> escreveu no dia s=C3=A1b= ado, >>>>> >>>> 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.= Had >>>>> trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. T= he >>>>> point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would st= ill 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 a= nd 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 repli= es >>>>> still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructio= ns say >>>>> to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Sinc= e >>>>> 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 acciden= tally >>>>> impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we alread= y >>>>> 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 bene= fit >>>>> from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wo= uldn'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 wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>> Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time hybrid which >>>>> is much different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusion as Po= C 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. T= here >>>>> are lots of benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I alread= y >>>>> looked into numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others i= n the >>>>> cryptography community attempted to propose. The actual argument you = have >>>>> only against this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only parti= ally >>>>> true. Given how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allo= cation >>>>> 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 th= at. >>>>> BTW: The way Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography still needs >>>>> updating regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the haltin= g >>>>> problem the traditional rule of millions of years to break all of Bit= coin's >>>>> cryptography now comes down to minutes. Bitcoin is going to have to >>>>> eventually radically upgrade their cryptography and hashing algo in t= he >>>>> future regardless. I want to integrate some form of NP complexity in >>>>> regards to the hybrid cryptography I'm aiming to provide which includ= es a >>>>> polynomial time algorithm in the cryptography. More than likely the f= irst >>>>> 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 t= o its >>>>> chain. >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>> In regards to the argument, "As a separate issue, proposing = a >>>>> hard fork in the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amoun= t of >>>>> capital expenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future capi= tal >>>>> 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 bene= fit >>>>> from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wo= uldn'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 cryptograp= hy 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 w= ork >>>>> alot with distributed computing. I believe if the BTC community likes= such >>>>> a proposal, I would single handedly be able to build the cryptographi= c >>>>> 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 s= take >>>>> 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 act= ually >>>>> 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 mi= ning >>>>> hardware that may compute these more "useful" proofs of work. This is >>>>> because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable a= nd >>>>> 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 t= he >>>>> bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position w= here >>>>> they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest in deciding wha= t 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 wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate tha= t >>>>> my cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but als= o >>>>> tackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is somethin= g the >>>>> BTC network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplic= ity, I >>>>> do want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regar= ds to >>>>> this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If thing= s such >>>>> as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at th= e very >>>>> least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography doe= s 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 lay= er 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 us= e 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-de= v >>>>> 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 ar= gue >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > --0000000000009c7a7105bdb0820d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Any proposed hard fork will wind up being some sort of Bi= tcoin sv thing

no matter what = you propose or no matter how awesome it is they'll be many people in th= e community who would prefer to continue business as usual.=C2=A0 which I&#= 39;d like to point out seems to be working very, very well.

s= o you should go into it with open eyes and start a fork right from the get-= go.

This is why I'm = a fan of proof of burn.=C2=A0 =C2=A0you can also use burned main chain as a= way of mining on the new chain.=C2=A0=C2=A0

the interesting thing is that you can calculate proof = of work equivalence in a meaningful way if you use Bitcoin as a reference, = and the total mined supply of the new coin, as another reference point.

That would enable you to sw= itch it entirely to burned coins as a proxy for proof of work, and enable p= eople who have Bitcoin to meaningfully participate in the new network.


=










On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:= 02 AM Lonero Foundation <= loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I know the differences between the cryptograp= hic hashing algorithm and key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but wa= s referring to=C2=A0asymmetric cryptography in regards to the key val= idation. I should have used a different term though instead of, "In re= gards to cryptographic hashing,", I should have stated in regards to c= ryptographic key validation. There are a few other dubious clarifications o= r minor edits I should make in order to not draw confusion. I will do a rep= o update today. Honest mistake, but enough with the sarcasm.

Best regards, Andrew

On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wro= te:

My email was not intended as an insult.=C2=A0 Y= our proposal seemed a bit like gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as = pointed out before (such as conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was= genuinely curious if you were a bot spamming the list.

=C2=A0

Maybe a more interesting topic= is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?=C2=A0 How long before our AI overl= ord produces improvements to Bitcoin?=C2=A0 At what point will the AI have = more than 51% of commit frequency?=C2=A0 Will we have lost the war to our n= ew centralized overlord?


Cheers,
-Yancy


On Satu= rday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <loneroasso= ciation@gmail.com> wrote:
=C2=A0
Also, I already stated I was referring to signature = validation cryptography in that aspect: https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-boo= k/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html
= My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs fo= r and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.
That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer const= ructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this = is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a spec= ific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository an= d call it a day.
=C2=A0
Best regards, Andrew
=C2=A0
On = Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassocia= tion@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main = point isn't just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cas= h, 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 techno= logical implementation, once this is assigned draft status I am more than w= illing to create preprints explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm i= mprovements, and consensus that I am working on. This is a highly technolog= ically complex idea that I am willing to "call my bluff on" and e= xpand 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.=
=C2=A0
Best regards, Andrew
=C2=A0
On Fri, Mar 12, 202= 1 at 5:37 PM email@yancy.lol <email@yancy.lol> wrote:
I think Andrew himself is an algo.= =C2=A0 The crypto training set must not be very good.

Cheers,
-Ya= ncy

On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitco= in-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org&g= t; wrote:
=C2=A0
Hi= , I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in relat= ion to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I might r= ephrase it.=C2=A0
=C2=A0
In regards= to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the i= dea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to follow it up with m= any preprints or publications to go in the references implementation sectio= n and start dev work before upgrading to final status.
=C2=A0
This will take about 400 hours of my time,= but is something I am personally looking into developing as a hard fork.
=C2=A0
Keep in mind this is a = draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do at the very leas= t hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmi= c structure I am hoping for.
=C2=A0
Best regards, Andrew
=C2=A0
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aron= esty <erik@q32.com> wrote:
secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo.=C2=A0 =C2=A0your BIP needs= about 10 more pages
and some degree of technical merit.

i sugges= t 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= > wrote:
>
> Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request h= ere: https://github.com/bitcoin/bip= s/pull/1084
>
> Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft pri= or to development/reference implementation.
>
> Best regards, A= ndrew
>
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>><= br>>> 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 i= nto draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on w= hat I want to work on.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>= >
>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>>><= br>>>> [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.
>>>
>>> B= est 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 brin= g 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 s=C3=A1bado,
>>>> 6/03/2021 =C3= =A0(s) 08:58:
>>>> >
>>>> > I know Ethe= reum 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 artic= le online so take it with a grain of salt. The point though is that both se= rvers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able to benefit from the cr= yptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in relation to the disinfran= chisemet 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= 9;t have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies still get se= en as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bi= tcoin-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.
>>>> >
>>&= gt;> > 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 accid= entally impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we alre= ady 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 a= lready 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 mini= ng entities as well.
>>>> >>
>>>> >&= gt; My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have supp= orting evidence for this?
>>>> >>
>>>> = >> Keagan
>>>> >>
>>>> >> O= n Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wro= te:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Actua= lly I mentioned a proof of space and time hybrid which is much different th= an staking. Sorry to draw for the confusion as PoC is more commonly used th= en PoST.
>>>> >>> There is a way to make PoC crypto= graphically 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 c= ompatible. There are lots of benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, a= nd I already looked into numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what o= thers in the cryptography community attempted to propose. The actual argume= nt 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 f= ixes that. BTW: The way Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography still = needs updating regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the haltin= g 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 fut= ure regardless. I want to integrate some form of NP complexity in regards t= o the hybrid cryptography I'm aiming to provide which includes a polyno= mial 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 complexi= ty 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 h= ashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure= by mining entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mini= ng hardware that may compute these more "useful" proofs of work.&= quot;
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> A l= arge portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and non-asic speci= fic 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.
>>>> >>&g= t;
>>>> >>> There are other reasons why a cryptogra= phy upgrade like this is beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin is= n't fully decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away fr= om being entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptog= raphy 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 cryptographi= c proof myself (though would like as many open source contributors as I can= get :)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> A= nyways just something to consider. We are in the same space in regards to w= hat warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against staking.
>>&= gt;> >>> https://hackernoon.com= /ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-are= nt-pi3s3yjl
>>>> >>>
>>>> >&g= t;> Best regards,=C2=A0 Andrew
>>>> >>>
>&= gt;>> >>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland &= lt;keagan.mcclelland@gmail.com> wrote:
>= >>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> It is im= portant to understand that it is critical for the work to be "useless&= quot; in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was usefu= l 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 les= sened by the fact that the work was useful in a different context and there= fore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades the security of th= e network in the process.
>>>> >>>>
>>&= gt;> >>>> As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the = hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditur= e by mining entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into min= ing hardware that may compute these more "useful" proofs of work.= This is because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstabl= e 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 t= he 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 th= e new "useful" proof of work should be.
>>>> >&= gt;>>
>>>> >>>> All of these things make t= he Bitcoin network worse off.
>>>> >>>>
>&= gt;>> >>>> Keagan
>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Fo= undation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@li= sts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>= >
>>>> >>>>> Also in regards to my other e= mail, I forgot to iterate that my cryptography proposal helps behind the ef= ficiency category but also tackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halt= ing 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 t= he community. If things such as bigger block height have been proposed as h= ard forks, I feel at the very least an upgrade regarding the hashing algori= thm 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?
>>= ;>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Bes= t regards, Andrew
>>>> >>>>>
>>>&= gt; >>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation &l= t;loneroassociation@gmail.com> wrote:
>&= gt;>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>&g= t;> Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to= renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the mo= st 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 forma= t on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?
>>>> >>= >>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Best regards,= Andrew
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> &g= t;>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom <c1.devrandom@niftybox.net> wrote:
>>>> = >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>&g= t; Hi Ryan and Andrew,
>>>> >>>>>>>
= >>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 A= M Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-de= v@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>= >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheape= st/
>>>> >>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 = =C2=A0"Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work"
>>>>= >>>>>>>>=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0on | 04 Aug 2015
&g= t;>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>> >>= ;>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> Just= to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining market will = tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.=C2=A0 It does not prov= e that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.
>>>= ;> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>= >> Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalitie= s 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 renewables,= so the point is likely moot.
>>>> >>>>>>&= gt;
>>>> >>>>> ______________________________= _________________
>>>> >>>>> bitcoin-dev mail= ing list
>>>> >>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> >&g= t;>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>= >>> >>>
>>>> >>> ________________= _______________________________
>>>> >>> bitcoin-de= v mailing list
>>>> >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>>>> >>= > https://l= ists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>>>&g= t; >
>>>> > __________________________________________= _____
>>>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list
>>>>= > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org=
>>>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-= dev
>
> _______________________________________________
= > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitco= in-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/li= stinfo/bitcoin-dev



=C2=A0



=C2=A0
--0000000000009c7a7105bdb0820d--