From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43363C0001 for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 00:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CA0A4331F for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 00:41:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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: smtp2.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp2.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp2.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id POgTtTXe3Cmm for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 00:41:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-wr1-x436.google.com (mail-wr1-x436.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::436]) by smtp2.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52ECF42FFF for ; Sat, 6 Mar 2021 00:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-x436.google.com with SMTP id e10so3978597wro.12 for ; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 16:41:49 -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; bh=R9HGcDv4hayt3Oh2/I+0akZLXMr8E6GEXlWYqFiM/lQ=; b=osCa555OMajpzvETm03wRQhw21/py80nRK8PXQ8xPBliof2ToiCfRfSAyzqHrjOewT ujcPFip0dsj51gE2UpBYWb+mbw3prFG95f/OesLUhZnb6lfDcGqyuCqSW6jgnj4ShbTO r5x7sWSXXFMUj5OV8khI1mFPJHthVxf/8bEt0QAryeSPZ7HUoTTiCoxuOOUk4YE064Yi R5Lp47FDHkzS7RQUAg+fy5sRRPcl10jTLF2i+3XlFKjNDu02YsQ8C9KUcY8+i81h2zo2 QE6esceJm7Ust4LcMhwF3pPnhsDB3/hIqjTyFwLNtDufMmXbuV6nBVMhKqLik9Gfspkx RSVg== 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; bh=R9HGcDv4hayt3Oh2/I+0akZLXMr8E6GEXlWYqFiM/lQ=; b=J7aVEg+JeJ8ZiHx536RctY1Jbw3tswOArZA4eHby5Wkf2fgr2kXMQqzhejRq/iNePI mFO/eaWtLU7H4CbdRo02LtIKued2TFSyl4FZvNK658KlVSmqpXUoJOCHFQKQgLFirY3O chqQuwfIKWjbS1DkHPOmsIKVQk+wmTHHTevS7Bqykk0b4zJ/wHQ8H5G8PQy7rjRhu8/Z HobkbiFxOKp/8Qr2IQpjUWxnyrpWTbxd72khWr16jjqC9hcx6y6GLFjlxOWYYGkRP4Fw MUDnaHCCGE7ZHxI8Uug6jfluHSP4ESIAVtukJv18AhBzr3fX9mqJjOP7OcW1X8p8jHkl dyTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530kx3reiA1L5WApTFf0HLRr+xEgraC3+7YlZ4fVKg1NdZXxno4y HeFRf7IcF7BKr3tLbpZhAhU/s1CnkA0rM+3gTlY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJweSLAv5VwYFGheTtDbiAa+0gw9adCVuzIipQQZXIT+idmdVTsR/3suTho+75J67XSF7JDX7cqHxO3i5N0csnY= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6205:: with SMTP id y5mr11660457wru.238.1614991307519; Fri, 05 Mar 2021 16:41:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Keagan McClelland Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2021 17:41:36 -0700 Message-ID: To: Lonero Foundation , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003339b905bcd377c4" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 08:58:05 +0000 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: Sat, 06 Mar 2021 00:41:51 -0000 --0000000000003339b905bcd377c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > 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 >>>> 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 > --0000000000003339b905bcd377c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS s= ervers and non-asic specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would ben= efit from a hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wou= ldn't disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
<= br>
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.linuxfo= undation.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=20 commonly used then PoST.
There is a way to make PoC cryptographic= ally compatible w/ Proof of Work as it normally stands: https://en.wikipedi= a.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=20 benefits outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already looked into=20 numerous fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the=20 cryptography community attempted to propose. The actual argument you=20 have only against this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only=20 partially true. Given how the current hashing algorithm works, hard=20 memory allocation wouldn't be of much benefit given it is more optimize= d for CPU/ASIC specific mining. I'm working towards a hybrid mechanism= =20 that fixes that. BTW: The way Bitcoin currently stands in its=20 cryptography still needs updating regardless. If someone figures out NP=20 hardness or the halting problem the traditional rule of millions of=20 years to break all of Bitcoin's cryptography now comes down to minutes.= =20 Bitcoin is going to have to eventually radically upgrade their=20 cryptography and hashing algo in the future regardless. I want to=20 integrate some form of NP complexity in regards to the hybrid=20 cryptography I'm aiming to provide which includes a polynomial time=20 algorithm in the cryptography. More than likely the first version of my=20 BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such complexity=20 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=20 entities and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining=20 hardware that may compute these more "useful" proofs of work.&quo= t;

A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and non-asic=20 specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit from a=20 hybrid proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't=20 disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.
<= br>
There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrade like this is=20 beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully=20 decentralized. It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being=20 entirely broken. My goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography=20 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=20 likes such a proposal, I would single handedly be able to build the=20 cryptographic proof myself (though would like as many open source=20 contributors as I can get :)

Anyways just=20 something to consider. We are in the same space in regards to what=20 warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against staking.

Best regards,=C2=A0 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 wo= rk 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 a= t stake when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block c= onstruction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful=C2=A0in 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 inva= lidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities and di= sincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may compu= te 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 ent= ities with a vested interest in deciding what the new "useful" pr= oof of work should be.

All of these things make th= e Bitcoin network worse off.

Keagan
On Fri, M= ar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lis= ts.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Also in regards to my other email, = I forgot to iterate that my cryptography proposal helps behind the efficien= cy category but also tackles problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting wh= ich 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 com= munity. If things such as bigger block height have been proposed as hard fo= rks, I feel at the very least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm an= d 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:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
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 wan= t 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 <<= a href=3D"mailto:c1.devrandom@niftybox.net" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_b= lank">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.linuxfou= ndation.org> wrote:

=C2=A0 https://www.tru= thcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work"
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 on | 04 Aug 2015


Just to belabor this a bit, the paper = demonstrates that the mining market will tend to expend resources equivalen= t to miner reward.=C2=A0 It does not prove that mining work has to expend *= energy* as a primary cost.

Some might argue th= at energy expenditure has negative externalities 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 moo= t.=C2=A0

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
= bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail= man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000003339b905bcd377c4--