FYI it’s generally considered bad form repost a private thread, especially one you initiate.
... It’s typically more effective to generate some community support before actually submitting a BIP. Otherwise the process gets easily overwhelmed. This is likely why you aren’t getting a response. You can draft the BIP in your own repo and collect feedback from interested parties. Posting a link to your research/code is a good start. I’d be happy to look at an overview of the central principles. I’m not a cryptographer. I write code, but I look at these things from economic principles. So far all I have to go on is that you go “much beyond” Chia. That’s not really anything. e > On Mar 5, 2021, at 14:03, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociat...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, Eric. Chia's network is a bad example. They go after energy consumption > in the wrong way entirely. True, it requires a comparable cost of hardware. I > am trying to tackle cryptography in a way that goes much beyond that. Part of > what I am doing includes lowering invalided proofs while trying to get the > best of both worlds in regards to PoW and PoC. It is an efficiency issue to > the core. In regards to the mechanisms of how I will do that, I suggest you > look at the entire proposal which is why I am hoping the BIP team would be so > gracious as to allow me to draft it out on GitHub. > > Best regards, Andrew > >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 4:42 PM Eric Voskuil <e...@voskuil.org> wrote: >> How is the argument against PoM only partially true? >> >> I wrote this as soon as I saw Chia. Had two debates on Twitter with Brahm, >> before he blocked me. Two years later, after they finally realized I was >> correct, one of their PhDs contacted me and told me. Better to flesh this >> out early. They had already raised $20 and done their research, so he wasn’t >> exactly in a listening mode. >> >> e >> >>>> On Mar 5, 2021, at 13:20, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociat...@gmail.com> >>>> 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 3:53 PM Eric Voskuil <e...@voskuil.org> wrote: >>>> 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
