Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-17 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
The advantage is simple, access to more computational opportunities means a more scalable network and other reasons, including further options for optimization. There are also lots of reasons to believe a huge demand of unmet needs in this space. Why force people to mine Chia if they want to mine B

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-17 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
I wouldn't fully discount general purpose hardware or hardware outside of the realm of ASICS. BOINC (https://cds.cern.ch/record/800111/files/p1099.pdf) implements a decent distributed computing protocol (granted it isn't a cryptocurrency), but it far computes data at a much cheaper cost compared to

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-16 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
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. > >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-16 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
> 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.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-16 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
ortium 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. >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-14 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
ssigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints >>>> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus >>>> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I >>>> am willing to "call my bluff on"

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-13 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
gt;> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I >>> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft, >>> I think this is a good starting point at least for draf

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-13 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
m willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft, >> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to >> working on technological implementation. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM em.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-13 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
:37 PM em...@yancy.lol wrote: > >> I think Andrew himself is an algo. The crypto training set must not be >> very good. >> >> Cheers, >> -Yancy >> >> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-13 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
i, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM em...@yancy.lol wrote: > I think Andrew himself is an algo. The crypto training set must not be > very good. > > Cheers, > -Yancy > > On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-12 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
spected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven > equivalent. you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged, > burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine. > > - erik > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-11 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
e it. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe >> wrote: >> >>> As said before, you are free to create the BIP in your own repository >>> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a PR &g

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-09 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe > wrote: > >> As said before, you are free to create the BIP in your own repository >> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a PR >> >> Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev >> escreveu no dia sábado, >> 6/

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-06 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
rom 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, M

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-06 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
ich 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) >

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-05 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
et 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 attempt

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-05 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
nterest 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: &g

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-05 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
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 thi

Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-05 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
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 GitHu

[bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining

2021-03-05 Thread Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
Hello, I want to start a new BIP proposal aiming to tackle some of the energy efficiency issues w/ Bitcoin mining. Excuse my ignorance given this is my first time making a BIP proposal, but is there a specific format I need to follow? Do I just make a draft on my personal GitHub or need to attach t