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 E6F6EC0001 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7E4405CC for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 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, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.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 NhvSIQnpAe-m for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-40132.protonmail.ch (mail-40132.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.132]) by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDCC7405BC for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 07:46:21 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1621323984; bh=s4FNkJfQY02iDv55FH6ukBUiUdrgBWDshF5tVpWj6zE=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ryDR+nF0J4uuEAZXNONhJulERzgKvJRDHkog0QIflzWyxXbycMvBl19I/DNh4HNYn OnaO8u5xpu28kRJODVaKs//icBPWI5fELHVo3MgPqVM/c7GmciRoMlnxyePB5FiM7H HVR7SXSZGxIfYLpW3WgkDT9nheixilZFIkvSFmk0= To: Anton Ragin , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <202105170258.13233.luke@dashjr.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Force to do nothing for first 9 minutes to save 90% of mining energy 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 07:46:30 -0000 Good morning Anton, > >> 4. My counter-proposal to the community to address energy consumption > >> problems would be *to encourage users to allow only 'green miners' pro= cess>> their transaction.* In particular: > >>... > >> (b) Should there be some non-profit organization(s) certifying green m= iners > >> and giving them cryptographic certificates of conformity (either usage= of > >> green energy or purchase of offsets), users could encrypt their > >> transactions and submit to mempool in such a format that *only green m= iners>> would be able to decrypt and process them*. > > >Hello centralisation. Might as well just have someone sign miner keys, a= nd get > >rid of PoW entirely... > >No, it is not centralization -=C2=A0 > > No, it is not centralization, as: > > (a) different miners could use different standards / certifications for '= green' status, there are many already; > (b) it does not affect stability of the network in a material way, rather= creates small (12.5% of revenue max) incentive to move to green sources of= energy (or buy carbon credits) and get certified - miners who would choose= to run dirty energy will still be able to do so. > and > > (c) nothing is being proposed beyond=C2=A0what is already possible - Antp= ool can go green today, and solicit users to send them signed transactions = directly instead of adding them to a public mempool, under the pretext that= it would make the transfer 'greener'. What is being proposed is some commu= nity effort to standardize=C2=A0& promote this approach, because if we mana= ge to make Bitcoin green(er) - we will remove what many commentators=C2= =A0see as the last barrier / biggest risk to even wider Bitcoin adoption. The point of avoiding centralization is to avoid authorities --- who can en= d up being bribeable or hackable single points-of-failure, and which would = potentially be able to kill Bitcoin as a whole from a single attack point. Adding an authority which filters miners works directly against this goal, = regardless of however you define "centralization" --- centralization is not= the root issue here, the authority *is*. One can observe that "more renewable" energy sources will, economically, be= cheaper (in the long run) anyway, and you do not have to add anything to g= o towards "more green" energy resources. After all, a "non-renewable" resource is simply a resource that has a lower= supply (it cannot be renewed) than a "more renewable" energy source. There is only so much energy that is stored in coal and oil on Earth, but t= he sun has a much larger total mass than Earth itself, thus it is a "more r= enewable" energy resource than coal and oil. Economically, this implies that "greener" energy resources will be cheaper = in the long run, simply by price being a function of supply. In short: trust the invisible hand. We already know that lots of miners already operate in places where energy = prices have bottomed due to oversupply due to technological improvements in= capturing energy that used to be dissipated as waste heat. What is needed is to spread this knowledge to others, not mess with the des= ign of Bitcoin at a fundamental level and risk introducing unexpected side = effects (bugs). Regards, ZmnSCPxj