Hi Andrew, Do you mean that you can reduce the cost of executing the cryptography at a comparable level of security? If so this will only have the effect of increasing the amount of it that is required to consume the same cost.
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Efficiency-Paradox You mentioned a staking hybrid in your original post. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Hybrid-Mining-Fallacy This would be a change to dynamics - the economic forces at work. Staking is not censorship resistant https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy and is therefore what I refer to as cryptodynamically insecure. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Cryptodynamic-Principles As such it wouldn’t likely be considered as a contribution to Bitcoin. It might of course be useful in some other context. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Shitcoin-Definition But BIPs are proposals aimed at Bitcoin improvement. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0001.mediawiki#What_is_a_BIP Non-staking attempts to improve energy efficiency are either proof of work in disguise, such as proof of memory: https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Memory-Fallacy or attempts to repurpose “wasteful” computing, such as by finding prime numbers, which does not imply a reduction in dedicated energy consumption. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Dedicated-Cost-Principle Finally, waste and renewable energy approaches at “carbon” (vs energy) reduction must still consume the same in cost as the reward. In other words, the apparent benefit represents a temporary market shift, with advantage to first movers. The market will still consume what it consumes. If the hashing energy was free all reward consumption would shift to operations. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Byproduct-Mining-Fallacy The motivation behind these attempts is naively understandable, but based on a false premise. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Waste-Fallacy The one thing that reduces Bitcoin energy consumption is an increase in energy cost relative to block reward. https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Energy-Exhaustion-Fallacy e > On Mar 5, 2021, at 07:30, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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 <c1.devran...@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-dev
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
