Actually disregard my last email, I realize you were replying to somebody else instead of me. Please for proposals not related to my BIP, such as a form of "luck chance lottery", post in a different discussion thread as to not draw confusion.
Best regards, Andrew On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:51 PM Lonero Foundation < loneroassociat...@gmail.com> wrote: > I also want to emphasize that Bitcoin's energy consumption is growing at > an exponential rate because of complexity. That in itself is a good thing > security-wise. However, there are limitations to the cryptography it is > using and the efficiency it is going about mining the way it is currently > done. > > Bitcoin can have this massive carbon footprint all become meaningless if > there is better math. So far we already outpaced many of the the more > traditional forms of cryptographic protocols Bitcoin is currently using, > including both for its mining and key validation. The hardware specificness > is also too limited. > > My proposal doesn't redesign the way Bitcoin is structured or its system, > rather it focuses on improvement or replacing what is outdated, and making > it more resistant to centralization, forced monopolization or an attack. > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:32 PM Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, just to clarify this isn't a trade-off on security. Infact, my >> proposal actually increases the level of security that Bitcoin currently >> has. There is both an efficiency and cryptography aspect to this proposal. >> I talked about the higher levels of security a bit in my BIP, and have >> talked to a few about energy consumption. >> >> Outside of consumption of energy however, is the fact that BTC can be >> more adaptable towards a major range of hardware without disenfranchising >> others or other major trade-offs. There is no need for BTC to specifically >> be tailored towards ASICs if the same level of proof of work can be done >> from other hardware sources at similar costs. The technology and level of >> cryptography between now and when Satoshi started BTC development 14 years >> ago is also fastly different. BTC went from you can mine lots of Bitcoin by >> literally downloading the whitepaper, to USB miners, to ASICs to now whole >> entire mining centers. >> >> This is because of complexity, but that complexity in the near future can >> be entirely meaningless if it is vulnerable to some of the things many >> cryptography experts are worried about. Keep in mind this is in draft mode, >> but over time as further implementation is done, alot of the community >> including yourself might start being impressed by the more and more >> tangible results. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021, 10:02 PM Eric Martindale <e...@ericmartindale.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Bitcoin's security is derived from the energy consumption of mining, so >>> reducing the overall expenditure would be an objective decrease in >>> resilience. As a miner, your efficiency at converting energy into >>> hashpower is the driving factor in your profitability, so this and any >>> other future attempts to decrease the cost of attacking Bitcoin receives a >>> hard NACK from me. >>> >>> If you're concerned about missing out on the subsidy or fee revenue, >>> grab any number of the sub-500mSAT USB miners and get access to cheap power. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Eric Martindale, relentless maker. >>> Founder & CEO, Fabric, Inc. <https://fabric.fm> >>> +1 (919) 374-2020 >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via >>> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Good Afternoon, >>>> >>>> It is obvious that something needs to be done to curtail the current >>>> cost of mining in kWh per block. I understand proposals are rejected >>>> because it is considered censorship and Bitcoin has a consensus to allow >>>> anyone to mine but, since mining requires specific hardware and energy >>>> requirements it is already a form of censorship where most on the planet >>>> except for the top 6% I am guessing here, cannot afford to mine. Without >>>> affecting the current algorithm, I have previously begun to explore the >>>> process by which mining can be turned into a lottery with only authorized >>>> payto addresses able to mine valid blocks, since transaction fees and block >>>> rewards exist to pay the miner. It would be better even if the algorithms >>>> are improved if there are some ways that only a subset of miners can >>>> produce valid blocks for any given period, say for 12 months with four >>>> groups starting three months apart to transition, and maybe limit mining to >>>> 50 people per continent to produce valid blocks at any one time. Possibly >>>> this requires a consortium to oversee the lottery but it is something >>>> Bitcoin can handle themselves, and would do better to handle than to wait >>>> for government intervention as we have seen previously in China where power >>>> was too cheap Bitcoin was banned entirely. >>>> >>>> KING JAMES HRMH >>>> Great British Empire >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> The Australian >>>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH) >>>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire >>>> MR. Damian A. James Williamson >>>> Wills >>>> >>>> et al. >>>> >>>> >>>> Willtech >>>> www.willtech.com.au >>>> www.go-overt.com >>>> and other projects >>>> >>>> earn.com/willtech >>>> linkedin.com/in/damianwilliamson >>>> >>>> >>>> m. 0487135719 >>>> f. +61261470192 >>>> >>>> >>>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this >>>> email if misdelivered. >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> *From:* bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on >>>> behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM >>>> *To:* Devrandom <c1.devran...@niftybox.net> >>>> *Cc:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion < >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST >>>> Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining >>>> >>>> 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 < >>>> loneroassociat...@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 <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
