BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining
37 messages, 4 to 17 Mar 2021. Started by Lonero Foundation.
Lonero Foundation (20), email (4), Eric Voskuil (2), Keagan McClelland (2), Erik Aronesty (2), ZmnSCPxj (2), Ryan Grant, Ricardo Filipe, +3 more
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 the README?
Anyways my idea is centered around a hybrid mining integration w/ POW/PoST for BTC's SHA-256 hash algorithm. The integration is actually a cryptography proof. While I would prefer a soft fork integration, a vastly different cryptography proof without affecting the current node integration is less than feasible.
Anyways, I do want to submit my document explaining everything and how all this would work. I am mostly a Quantum Engineer and Bioinformatics consultant for a living, so I think what I can propose to an extent may be of interest to some.
Best regards, Andrew M. K. Nassief
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 9:39 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (4 lines)
> 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?
Hi Andrew,
I would like to discourage you from writing a BIP on this topic, as any such proposal is guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions in the community.
Please update your priors with the following:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0002.mediawiki BIP: 2 Title: BIP process, revised
https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ "Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work" on | 04 Aug 2015
Your topic brings up an interesting edge case, which is whether the BIP repository is an open forum for all possible arguments that are technically well constructed. Obviously: no; but by what non-arbitrary process do we decide?
I propose that the BIP Editor's role should include preserving signal in the table of contents generated from our proposal repository, by unilaterally rejecting - without any fuhrer comment - technically well constructed proposals which are guaranteed to be rejected based on prior discussions in the community, as spam. I think this is already how it works, but we haven't actually written down this part of the norms.
Since censorship is always a concern, it would be appropriate to maintain a moderation log of spam BIPs, so that observers could judge whether the BIP Editor is misusing the BIP assignment process to censor proposals with some merit. Since one of the requirements for submitting a BIP is to notify bitcoin-dev, the log is already maintained. Since bitcoin-dev is moderated, the moderators take on a low level of responsibility for gauging spam proposals (and they are pretty relaxed about it, since it is better to err on the side of inclusion for new developers, except for obvious patent bombing). Since the bitcoin-dev moderation log is public and anyone can subscribe to it, protective transparency is again achieved.
https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev-moderation/
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.devrandom@niftybox•net> wrote:
Quoted text (21 lines)
> 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. > >
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 <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (31 lines)
> 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.devrandom@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. >> >>
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
Quoted text (22 lines)
> 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.devrandom@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
It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades the security of the network in the process.
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. This is because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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:
Quoted text (52 lines)
> 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 < > loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >
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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (79 lines)
> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be > "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was > useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when > submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction > will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different > context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades > the security of the network in the process. > > 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. This is because any change in > the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the > future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no > entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at > large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed > by entities with a vested interest 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: > >> 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 < >> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >> >
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 <eric@voskuil•org> wrote:
Quoted text (180 lines)
> 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 <loneroassociation@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 <eric@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.devrandom@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 >> >>
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
Quoted text (106 lines)
> On Mar 5, 2021, at 14:03, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@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 <eric@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 <loneroassociation@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 <eric@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.devrandom@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
Hi, in regards to my research this is just one of my patents: https://patents.google.com/patent/CN110825707A This isn't related to this proposal but gives you a general depth of understanding in regards to the technology and field I'm working on in reducing redundancy and efficiency. You aren't a cryptographer, but there are easy ways to validate my proposal if it was to be made. In regards to popularity, many people have wanted to upgrade BTC's cryptography in a similar manner. I believe it is at the very least a topic of interest to you and others in the community. I would like to draft it out. Lastly, I wasn't sure if you wanted to create a private thread or meant reply all so that is my fault. The recent reply is to the BTC Dev list so I wanted to provide my insight in regards to your inquiry.
Best regards, Andrew
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 5:50 PM Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org> wrote:
Quoted text (216 lines)
> 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 <loneroassociation@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 <eric@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 <loneroassociation@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 <eric@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.devrandom@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 >>> >>>
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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.
My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have supporting evidence for this?
Keagan
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (140 lines)
> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < > keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: > >> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be >> "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was >> useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when >> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction >> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different >> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades >> the security of the network in the process. >> >> 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. This is because any change in >> the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the >> future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no >> entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at >> large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed >> by entities with a vested interest 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: >> >>> 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 < >>> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >
I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point.
That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this.
I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already established some interest for at least a draft.
Does that seem fine?
Best regards, Andrew
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (154 lines)
> > 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. > > My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have > supporting evidence for this? > > Keagan > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < >> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >> >>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be >>> "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was >>> useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when >>> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction >>> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different >>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades >>> the security of the network in the process. >>> >>> 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. This is because any change in >>> the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the >>> future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no >>> entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at >>> large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed >>> by entities with a vested interest 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: >>> >>>> 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 < >>>> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >> >
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 <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58:
Quoted text (88 lines)
> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. > > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. > > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already established some interest for at least a draft. > > Does that seem fine? > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >> >> > 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. >> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have supporting evidence for this? >> >> Keagan >> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades the security of the network in the process. >>>> >>>> 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. This is because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >>>>> >>>>> 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 <loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 > > _______________________________________________ > bitcoin-dev mailing list > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I want to work on.
Best regards, Andrew
On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (204 lines)
> [off-list] > > Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing a > pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> > 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 >> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, >> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: >> > >> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running >> on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had trouble >> finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point >> though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able >> to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in >> relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >> > >> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP pull >> request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any >> questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way >> people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies >> still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say >> to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since >> people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually >> anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. >> > >> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rather >> form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally >> impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already >> established some interest for at least a draft. >> > >> > Does that seem fine? >> > >> > Best regards, Andrew >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland < >> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have >> supporting evidence for this? >> >> >> >> Keagan >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < >> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be >> "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was >> useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when >> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction >> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different >> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades >> the security of the network in the process. >> >>>> >> >>>> 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. This is because any >> change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to >> change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more risk >> meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin >> network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can >> be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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 < >> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > bitcoin-dev mailing list >> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >
Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084
Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference implementation.
Best regards, Andrew
On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (215 lines)
> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: > https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki > Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft > mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I want > to work on. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: > >> [off-list] >> >> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing a >> pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> >> 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 >>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, >>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: >>> > >>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running >>> on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had trouble >>> finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point >>> though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able >>> to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in >>> relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >>> > >>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP >>> pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any >>> questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way >>> people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies >>> still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say >>> to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since >>> people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually >>> anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. >>> > >>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rather >>> form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally >>> impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already >>> established some interest for at least a draft. >>> > >>> > Does that seem fine? >>> > >>> > Best regards, Andrew >>> > >>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland < >>> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > 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. >>> >> >>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have >>> supporting evidence for this? >>> >> >>> >> Keagan >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < >>> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to >>> be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work >>> was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when >>> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction >>> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different >>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades >>> the security of the network in the process. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 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. This is because any >>> change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to >>> change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more risk >>> meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin >>> network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can >>> be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> 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 < >>> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > bitcoin-dev mailing list >>> > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org >>> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>> >>
secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages and some degree of technical merit.
i suggest you start here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always suspected 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (123 lines)
> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084 > > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference implementation. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I want to work on. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>> [off-list] >>> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. >>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> 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 >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: >>>> > >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >>>> > >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. >>>> > >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already established some interest for at least a draft. >>>> > >>>> > Does that seem fine? >>>> > >>>> > Best regards, Andrew >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> > 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. >>>> >> >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have supporting evidence for this? >>>> >> >>>> >> Keagan >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades the security of the network in the process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. This is because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 <loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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
Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I might rephrase it.
In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.
This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am personally looking into developing as a hard fork.
Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.
Best regards, Andrew
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com> wrote:
Quoted text (249 lines)
> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages > and some degree of technical merit. > > i suggest you start here: > > https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0 > > proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always > suspected 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 > <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: > > > > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: > https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084 > > > > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference > implementation. > > > > Best regards, Andrew > > > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: > https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki > >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft > mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I want > to work on. > >> > >> Best regards, Andrew > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: > >>> > >>> [off-list] > >>> > >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing > a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. > >>> > >>> Best regards, Andrew > >>> > >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe < > ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> 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 > >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, > >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: > >>>> > > >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes > running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had > trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The > point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be > able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was > in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. > >>>> > > >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP > pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any > questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way > people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies > still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say > to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since > people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually > anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. > >>>> > > >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but > rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally > impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already > established some interest for at least a draft. > >>>> > > >>>> > Does that seem fine? > >>>> > > >>>> > Best regards, Andrew > >>>> > > >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland < > keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > 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. > >>>> >> > >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have > supporting evidence for this? > >>>> >> > >>>> >> Keagan > >>>> >> > >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < > keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work > to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work > was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when > submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction > will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different > context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades > the security of the network in the process. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> 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. This is > because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and > subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more > risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the > bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where > they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: > >>>> >>>>> > >>>> >>>>> 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 < > loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 > >>>> > > >>>> > _______________________________________________ > >>>> > 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 >
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•org> wrote: Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I might rephrase it. In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status. This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am personally looking into developing as a hard fork. Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com> wrote:secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages and some degree of technical merit.
i suggest you start here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always suspected 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (123 lines)
> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084 > > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference implementation. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I want to work on. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>> [off-list] >>> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. >>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> 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 >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: >>>> > >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >>>> > >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. >>>> > >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already established some interest for at least a draft. >>>> > >>>> > Does that seem fine? >>>> > >>>> > Best regards, Andrew >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> > 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. >>>> >> >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have supporting evidence for this? >>>> >> >>>> >> Keagan >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades the security of the network in the process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. This is because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 <loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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
Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once this is assigned 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" 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 email@yancy•lol <email@yancy•lol> wrote:
Quoted text (283 lines)
> 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•org> wrote: > > > Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in > relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I > might rephrase it. > > In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a > sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to > follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references > implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status. > > This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am > personally looking into developing as a hard fork. > > Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to > references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the > cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com> wrote: > >> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages >> and some degree of technical merit. >> >> i suggest you start here: >> >> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn >> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0 >> >> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always >> suspected 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 >> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: >> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084 >> > >> > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference >> implementation. >> > >> > Best regards, Andrew >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: >> https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki >> >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft >> mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I want >> to work on. >> >> >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> [off-list] >> >>> >> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing >> a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, Andrew >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe < >> ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> 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 >> >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, >> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: >> >>>> > >> >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes >> running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had >> trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The >> point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be >> able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was >> in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP >> pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any >> questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way >> people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies >> still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say >> to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since >> people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually >> anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but >> rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally >> impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already >> established some interest for at least a draft. >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Does that seem fine? >> >>>> > >> >>>> > Best regards, Andrew >> >>>> > >> >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland < >> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > 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. >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you >> have supporting evidence for this? >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> Keagan >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < >> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work >> to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work >> was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when >> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction >> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different >> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades >> the security of the network in the process. >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> 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. This is >> because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and >> subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more >> risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the >> bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where >> they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> 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 < >> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >> >>>> > >> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>>> > 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 > > > > >
Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation cryptography in that aspect: https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for. That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and call it a day.
Best regards, Andrew
On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation < loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (304 lines)
> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC > hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in > regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an > alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the > future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes > I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once > this is assigned 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" 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 email@yancy•lol <email@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•org> wrote: >> >> >> Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in >> relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I >> might rephrase it. >> >> In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a >> sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to >> follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references >> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status. >> >> This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am >> personally looking into developing as a hard fork. >> >> Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to >> references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the >> cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com> wrote: >> >>> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages >>> and some degree of technical merit. >>> >>> i suggest you start here: >>> >>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0 >>> >>> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always >>> suspected 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 >>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: >>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084 >>> > >>> > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference >>> implementation. >>> > >>> > Best regards, Andrew >>> > >>> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation < >>> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: >>> https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki >>> >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into >>> draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what >>> I want to work on. >>> >> >>> >> Best regards, Andrew >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation < >>> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> [off-list] >>> >>> >>> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before >>> doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe < >>> ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> 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 >>> >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, >>> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes >>> running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had >>> trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The >>> point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be >>> able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was >>> in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a >>> BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any >>> questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way >>> people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies >>> still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say >>> to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since >>> people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually >>> anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but >>> rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally >>> impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already >>> established some interest for at least a draft. >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > Does that seem fine? >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > Best regards, Andrew >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland < >>> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> > 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. >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you >>> have supporting evidence for this? >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> Keagan >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev >>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < >>> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work >>> to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work >>> was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when >>> submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction >>> will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different >>> context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades >>> the security of the network in the process. >>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> 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. This is >>> because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and >>> subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more >>> risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the >>> bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where >>> they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >>> >>>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>> 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 < >>> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> > >
My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you were a bot spamming the list. Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have lost the war to our new centralized overlord? Cheers, -Yancy
On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation cryptography in that aspect: https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.htmlMy BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and call it a day. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote:Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once this is assigned 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" 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 email@yancy•lol <email@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•org> wrote: Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I might rephrase it. In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status. This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am personally looking into developing as a hard fork. Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com> wrote:secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages and some degree of technical merit.
i suggest you start here:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always suspected 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 <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (123 lines)
> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084 > > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to development/reference implementation. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what I want to work on. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>> [off-list] >>> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. >>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> 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 >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: >>>> > >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >>>> > >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. >>>> > >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already established some interest for at least a draft. >>>> > >>>> > Does that seem fine? >>>> > >>>> > Best regards, Andrew >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> > 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. >>>> >> >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have supporting evidence for this? >>>> >> >>>> >> Keagan >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland <keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades the security of the network in the process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. This is because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 <loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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
Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but enough with the sarcasm.
Best regards, Andrew
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy•lol <email@yancy•lol> wrote:
Quoted text (346 lines)
> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like > gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as > conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you > were a bot spamming the list. > > > Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? > How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what > point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have > lost the war to our new centralized overlord? > > Cheers, > -Yancy > > > On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: > > > Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation > cryptography in that aspect: > https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html > My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs > for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for. > That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive > feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an > improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific > thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and > call it a day. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: > >> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a >> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in >> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an >> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the >> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes >> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once >> this is assigned 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" 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 email@yancy•lol <email@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•org> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in >>> relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I >>> might rephrase it. >>> >>> In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a >>> sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to >>> follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references >>> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status. >>> >>> This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am >>> personally looking into developing as a hard fork. >>> >>> Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to >>> references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the >>> cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for. >>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com> wrote: >>> >>>> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages >>>> and some degree of technical merit. >>>> >>>> i suggest you start here: >>>> >>>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn >>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0 >>>> >>>> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always >>>> suspected 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 >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: >>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084 >>>> > >>>> > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to >>>> development/reference implementation. >>>> > >>>> > Best regards, Andrew >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation < >>>> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: >>>> https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki >>>> >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into >>>> draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what >>>> I want to work on. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best regards, Andrew >>>> >> >>>> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation < >>>> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> [off-list] >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before >>>> doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe < >>>> ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> 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 >>>> >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, >>>> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes >>>> running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had >>>> trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The >>>> point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be >>>> able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was >>>> in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a >>>> BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any >>>> questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way >>>> people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies >>>> still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say >>>> to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since >>>> people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually >>>> anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but >>>> rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally >>>> impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already >>>> established some interest for at least a draft. >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Does that seem fine? >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > Best regards, Andrew >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland < >>>> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> > 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. >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you >>>> have supporting evidence for this? >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> Keagan >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via >>>> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < >>>> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the >>>> work to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the >>>> work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake >>>> when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block >>>> construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a >>>> different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually >>>> degrades the security of the network in the process. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. This is >>>> because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and >>>> subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more >>>> risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the >>>> bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where >>>> they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 < >>>> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
Ok thanks. Using the correct terminology helps people understand what you're talking about and take you seriously.
Cheers, -Yancy
Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com>:
Quoted text (43 lines)
> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but enough with the sarcasm. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy•lol <email@yancy•lol> wrote: >> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you were a bot spamming the list. >> >> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have lost the war to our new centralized overlord? >> >> Cheers, >> -Yancy >> >> >> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >>> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation cryptography in that aspect: https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html >>> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for. >>> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and call it a day. >>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once this is assigned 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" 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 email@yancy•lol <email@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•org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> … >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >> >>
Hi, no worries. I made the changes now in the GitHub repository and pull request. I'm hoping for a BIP # soon. Thanks for the feedback, and I guess the sense of humor.
Best regards, Andrew
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:45 AM yancy <email@yancy•lol> wrote:
Quoted text (97 lines)
> Ok thanks. Using the correct terminology helps people understand what > you're talking about and take you seriously. > > Cheers, > -Yancy > > Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com>: > > Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and > key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric > cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a > different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I > should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a > few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to > not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but > enough with the sarcasm. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy•lol <email@yancy•lol> wrote: > >> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like >> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as >> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you >> were a bot spamming the list. >> >> >> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? >> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what >> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have >> lost the war to our new centralized overlord? >> >> Cheers, >> -Yancy >> >> >> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >> >> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation >> cryptography in that aspect: >> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html >> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs >> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for. >> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer >> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all >> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a >> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a >> repository and call it a day. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a >>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in >>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an >>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the >>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes >>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once >>> this is assigned 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" 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 email@yancy•lol <email@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•org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> … >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
My mistake for thinking your text was generated text, and my humor was not meant to be directed at you, so apologies if you took it personally. PS: The AI overlord is no joke Cheers, -Yancy
On Saturday, March 13, 2021 18:11 CET, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: Hi, no worries. I made the changes now in the GitHub repository and pull request. I'm hoping for a BIP # soon. Thanks for the feedback, and I guess the sense of humor. Best regards, Andrew On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:45 AM yancy <email@yancy•lol> wrote:Ok thanks. Using the correct terminology helps people understand what you're talking about and take you seriously.
Cheers, -Yancy Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com>:Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but enough with the sarcasm. Best regards, Andrew On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy•lol <email@yancy•lol> wrote: My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you were a bot spamming the list. Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have lost the war to our new centralized overlord? Cheers, -Yancy
On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation cryptography in that aspect: https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.htmlMy BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a repository and call it a day. Best regards, Andrew On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote:Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once this is assigned 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" 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 email@yancy•lol <email@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•org> wrote: …
I have added quite a bit more details. I haven't made any UML diagrams just yet. I did add a basic non-technical infographic though, and more then likely making a technical UML for the cryptographic mechanisms will be on my to-do list. I have also updated the terminology and added a bit more content.
Best regards, Andrew
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 2:44 PM email@yancy•lol <email@yancy•lol> wrote:
Quoted text (122 lines)
> My mistake for thinking your text was generated text, and my humor was not > meant to be directed at you, so apologies if you took it personally. > > > PS: The AI overlord is no joke > > Cheers, > -Yancy > > On Saturday, March 13, 2021 18:11 CET, Lonero Foundation < > loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: > > > Hi, no worries. I made the changes now in the GitHub repository and pull > request. I'm hoping for a BIP # soon. Thanks for the feedback, and I guess > the sense of humor. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:45 AM yancy <email@yancy•lol> wrote: > >> Ok thanks. Using the correct terminology helps people understand what >> you're talking about and take you seriously. >> >> Cheers, >> -Yancy >> >> >> Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com>: >> >> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm >> and key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric >> cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a >> different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I >> should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a >> few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to >> not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but >> enough with the sarcasm. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy•lol <email@yancy•lol> wrote: >> >>> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like >>> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as >>> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you >>> were a bot spamming the list. >>> >>> >>> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? >>> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what >>> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have >>> lost the war to our new centralized overlord? >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -Yancy >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation < >>> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation >>> cryptography in that aspect: >>> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html >>> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs >>> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for. >>> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer >>> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all >>> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a >>> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a >>> repository and call it a day. >>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation < >>> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a >>>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in >>>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an >>>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the >>>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes >>>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once >>>> this is assigned 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" 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 email@yancy•lol <email@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•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-bounces@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.devrandom@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 <loneroassociation@gmail•com<mailto:loneroassociation@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.devrandom@niftybox•net<mailto:c1.devrandom@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<mailto: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.
MY LORD HIS EXCELLENCY:
It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning.
Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more profitable.
To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed.
The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency, but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular free markets in energy.
That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven underground.
Your humble subject etc.
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (69 lines)
> > 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-bounces@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.devrandom@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 <loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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'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:
Quoted text (110 lines)
> 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-bounces@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.devrandom@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 < > loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >
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 <eric@ericmartindale•com> wrote:
Quoted text (132 lines)
> 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-bounces@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.devrandom@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 < >> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >> >
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 < loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (180 lines)
> 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 < > loneroassociation@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 <eric@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-bounces@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.devrandom@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 < >>>> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >>>> >>>
In regards to my BIP proposal, I finally added a bit more details to the draft. So far an interesting discussion to say the least.
Best regards, Andrew
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 9:23 AM Thomas Hartman via bitcoin-dev < bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote:
Quoted text (142 lines)
> MY LORD HIS EXCELLENCY: > > It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning. > > Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to > smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more > profitable. > > To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you > pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed. > > The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency, > but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular > free markets in energy. > > That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven > underground. > > Your humble subject etc. > > > > > > 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 o > ne 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-bounces@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.devrandom@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 < > loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >
Any proposed hard fork will wind up being some sort of Bitcoin sv thing
no matter what you propose or no matter how awesome it is they'll be many people in the community who would prefer to continue business as usual. which I'd like to point out seems to be working very, very well.
so you should go into it with open eyes and start a fork right from the get-go.
This is why I'm a fan of proof of burn. you can also use burned main chain as a way of mining on the new chain.
the interesting thing is that you can calculate proof of work equivalence in a meaningful way if you use Bitcoin as a reference, and the total mined supply of the new coin, as another reference point.
That would enable you to switch it entirely to burned coins as a proxy for proof of work, and enable people who have Bitcoin to meaningfully participate in the new network.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:02 AM Lonero Foundation < loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (362 lines)
> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and > key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric > cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a > different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I > should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a > few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to > not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but > enough with the sarcasm. > > Best regards, Andrew > > On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email@yancy•lol <email@yancy•lol> wrote: > >> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like >> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as >> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you >> were a bot spamming the list. >> >> >> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP? >> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what >> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have >> lost the war to our new centralized overlord? >> >> Cheers, >> -Yancy >> >> >> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >> >> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation >> cryptography in that aspect: >> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html >> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs >> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for. >> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer >> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all >> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a >> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a >> repository and call it a day. >> >> Best regards, Andrew >> >> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation < >> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >> >>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a >>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in >>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an >>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the >>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes >>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once >>> this is assigned 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" 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 email@yancy•lol <email@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•org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in >>>> relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I >>>> might rephrase it. >>>> >>>> In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a >>>> sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to >>>> follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references >>>> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status. >>>> >>>> This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am >>>> personally looking into developing as a hard fork. >>>> >>>> Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to >>>> references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the >>>> cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for. >>>> >>>> Best regards, Andrew >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik@q32•com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages >>>>> and some degree of technical merit. >>>>> >>>>> i suggest you start here: >>>>> >>>>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn >>>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0 >>>>> >>>>> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always >>>>> suspected 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 >>>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here: >>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084 >>>>> > >>>>> > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to >>>>> development/reference implementation. >>>>> > >>>>> > Best regards, Andrew >>>>> > >>>>> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation < >>>>> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo: >>>>> https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki >>>>> >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into >>>>> draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what >>>>> I want to work on. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best regards, Andrew >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation < >>>>> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> [off-list] >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before >>>>> doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Best regards, Andrew >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe < >>>>> ricardojdfilipe@gmail•com> 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 >>>>> >>>> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> escreveu no dia sábado, >>>>> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58: >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes >>>>> running on AWS, I heard the same thing is for Bitcoin but for mining. Had >>>>> trouble finding the article online so take it with a grain of salt. The >>>>> point though is that both servers and ASIC specific hardware would still be >>>>> able to benefit from the cryptography upgrade I am proposing, as this was >>>>> in relation to the disinfranchisemet point. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > That said, I think the best way to move forward is to submit a >>>>> BIP pull request for a draft via GitHub using BIP #2's draft format and any >>>>> questions people have can be answered in the reqeust's comments. That way >>>>> people don't have to get emails everytime there is a reply, but replies >>>>> still get seen as opposed to offline discussion. Since the instructions say >>>>> to email bitcoin-dev before doing a bip draft, I have done that. Since >>>>> people want to see the draft beforehand and it isn't merged manually >>>>> anyways, I think it is the easiest way to handle this. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > I'm also okay w/ continuing the discussion on bitcoin-dev but >>>>> rather form a discussion on git instead given I don't want to accidentally >>>>> impolitely bother people given this is a moderated list and we already >>>>> established some interest for at least a draft. >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > Does that seem fine? >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > Best regards, Andrew >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 7:41 PM Keagan McClelland < >>>>> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> > 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. >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> My instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you >>>>> have supporting evidence for this? >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> Keagan >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via >>>>> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation•org> 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 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland < >>>>> keagan.mcclelland@gmail•com> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is important to understand that it is critical for the >>>>> work to be "useless" in order for the security model to be the same. If the >>>>> work was useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake >>>>> when submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block >>>>> construction will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a >>>>> different context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually >>>>> degrades the security of the network in the process. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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. This is >>>>> because any change in the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and >>>>> subject to change in the future. This puts the entire network at even more >>>>> risk meaning that no entity is tying their own interests to that of the >>>>> bitcoin network at large. It also puts the developers in a position where >>>>> they can be bribed by entities with a vested interest 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: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 < >>>>> loneroassociation@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.devrandom@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 >>>>> >>>> > >>>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> >>>> > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
Good morning Andrew,
Looking over the text...
Quoted text (1 line)
> # I am looking towards integrating memory hard compatibility w/ the mining algorithm. Memory hard computation allows for time and space complexity for data storage functionality, and there is a way this can likely be implemented without disenfranchising current miners or their hardware if done right.
I believe this represents a tradeoff between time and space --- either you use one spatial unit and take a lot of time, or you use multiple spatial units and take smaller units of time.
But such time/space tradeoffs are already possible with the existing mechanism --- if you cannot run your existing SHA256d miner faster (time), you just buy more miners (space).
Thus, I think the requirement for memory hardness is a red herring in the design of proof-of-work algorithms. Memory hardness *prevents* this tradeoff (you cannot create a smaller miner that takes longer to mine, as you have a memory requirement that prevents trading off space).
It is also helpful to remember that spinning rust consumes electricity as well, and that any operation that requires changes in data being stored requires a lot of energy. Indeed, in purely computational algorithms (e.g. CPU processing pipelines) a significant amount of energy is spent on *changing* voltage levels, with very little energy (negligible compared to the energy spent in changing voltage levels in modern CMOS hardware) in *maintaining* the voltage levels.
Quoted text (1 line)
> I don't see a reason why somebody with $2m of regular hardware can't mine the same amount of BTC as somebody with $2m worth of ASICs.
I assume here that "regular hardware" means "general-purpose computing device".
The Futamura projections are a good reason I see: http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/05/three-projections-of-doctor-futamura.html
Basically, any interpreter + fixed program can be converted, via Futamura projection, to an optimized program that cannot interpret any other program but runs faster and takes less resources.
In short, any hardware interpreter (i.e. general-purpose computing device) + a fixed proof-of-whatever program, can be converted to an optimized hardware that can only perform that proof-of-whatever program, but consuming less energy and space and will (eventually) be cheaper per unit as well, so that $2M of such a specific hardware will outperform $2M of general-purpose computing hardwre.
Thus, all application-specificity (i.e. any fixed program) will always take less resources to run than a generic hardware interpreter that can run any program.
Thus, if you ever nail down the specifics of your algorithm, and if a thousand-Bitcoin industry ever grows around that program, you will find that ASICs ***will*** arise that run that algorithm faster and less energy-consuming than general-purpose hardware that has to interpret a binary. **For one, memory/disk bus operations are limited only to actual data, without requiring additional bus operations to fetch code.** Data can be connected directly from the output of one computational sub-unit to the input of another, without requiring (as in the general-purpose hardware case) that the intermediate outputs be placed in general-purpose storage register (which, as noted, takes energy to *change* its contents, and as general-purpose storage will also be used to hold *other* intermediate outputs). Specialized HDDs can arise as well which are optimized for whatever access pattern your scheme requires, and that would also outperform general-purpose HDDs as well.
Further optimizations may also exist in an ASIC context that are not readily visible but which are likely to be hidden somewhere --- the more complicated your program design, the more likely it is that you will not readily see such hidden optimizations that can be achieved by ASICs (xref ASICBOOST).
In short, even with memory-hardness, an ASIC will arise which might need to be connected to an array of (possibly specialized) HDDs but which will still outperform your general-purpose hardware connected to an array of general-purpose storage.
Indeed, various storage solutions already have different specializations: SMR HDDs replace tape drives, PMR HDDs serve as caches of SMR HDDs, SSDs serve as caches of PMR HDDs. An optimized technology stack like that can outperform a generic HDD.
You cannot fight the inevitability of ASICs and other specialized hardware, just as you cannot fight specialization.
You puny humans must specialize in order to achieve the heights of your civilization --- I can bet you 547 satoshis that you yourself cannot farm your own food, you specialize in software engineering of some kind and just pay a farmer to harvest your food for you. Indeed, you probably do not pay a farmer directly, but pay an intermediary that specializes in packing food for transport from the farm to your domicile. which itself probably delegates the actual transporting to another specialist. Similarly, ASICs will arise and focus on particularly high-value fixed computations, inevitably.
Regards, ZmnSCPxj
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 the competition w/ decent levels of fault tolerance. I myself am running an extremely large scale open distributed computing pipeline, and can tell you for certain that what is out there is insane. In regards to the argument of generic HDDs and CPUs, the algorithmic implementation I am providing would likely make them more adaptable. More than likely, evidently there would be specialized HDDs similar to BurstCoin Miners, and 128-core CPUs, and all that. This could be inevitable, but the main point is providing access to other forms of computation along w/ ASICs. At the very least, the generic guys can experience it, and other infrastructures can have some form of compatibility. In regards to ASICBOOST, I am already well aware of it, as well as mining firmwares, autotuning, multi-threaded processing setups, overclocking, and even different research firms involved. I think it is feasible to provide multiple forms of computation without disenfranchising one over the other. I'm also well aware of the history of BTC and how you can mine BTC just by downloading the whitepaper, to USB block erupters, to generic CPUs, to few ASICS, to entire mining farms. I also have seen experimental projects such as Cuckoo <https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo>, so I know the arguments regarding computation vs. memory boundness and whether or not they can be one of the same. The answer is yes, but it needs to be designed correctly. I think in regards to the level of improvement, this is just one of the improvements in my BIPs in regards to making PoW more adaptable. I also have cryptography improvements I'm looking into as well. Nonetheless, I believe the implementation I want to do would at the very least be quite interesting.
Best regards, Andrew
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:05 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (109 lines)
> Good morning Andrew, > > Looking over the text... > > > # I am looking towards integrating memory hard compatibility w/ the > mining algorithm. Memory hard computation allows for time and space > complexity for data storage functionality, and there is a way this can > likely be implemented without disenfranchising current miners or their > hardware if done right. > > I believe this represents a tradeoff between time and space --- either you > use one spatial unit and take a lot of time, or you use multiple spatial > units and take smaller units of time. > > But such time/space tradeoffs are already possible with the existing > mechanism --- if you cannot run your existing SHA256d miner faster (time), > you just buy more miners (space). > > Thus, I think the requirement for memory hardness is a red herring in the > design of proof-of-work algorithms. > Memory hardness *prevents* this tradeoff (you cannot create a smaller > miner that takes longer to mine, as you have a memory requirement that > prevents trading off space). > > It is also helpful to remember that spinning rust consumes electricity as > well, and that any operation that requires changes in data being stored > requires a lot of energy. > Indeed, in purely computational algorithms (e.g. CPU processing pipelines) > a significant amount of energy is spent on *changing* voltage levels, with > very little energy (negligible compared to the energy spent in changing > voltage levels in modern CMOS hardware) in *maintaining* the voltage levels. > > > I don't see a reason why somebody with $2m of regular hardware can't > mine the same amount of BTC as somebody with $2m worth of ASICs. > > I assume here that "regular hardware" means "general-purpose computing > device". > > The Futamura projections are a good reason I see: > http://blog.sigfpe.com/2009/05/three-projections-of-doctor-futamura.html > > Basically, any interpreter + fixed program can be converted, via Futamura > projection, to an optimized program that cannot interpret any other program > but runs faster and takes less resources. > > In short, any hardware interpreter (i.e. general-purpose computing device) > + a fixed proof-of-whatever program, can be converted to an optimized > hardware that can only perform that proof-of-whatever program, but > consuming less energy and space and will (eventually) be cheaper per unit > as well, so that $2M of such a specific hardware will outperform $2M of > general-purpose computing hardwre. > > Thus, all application-specificity (i.e. any fixed program) will always > take less resources to run than a generic hardware interpreter that can run > any program. > > Thus, if you ever nail down the specifics of your algorithm, and if a > thousand-Bitcoin industry ever grows around that program, you will find > that ASICs ***will*** arise that run that algorithm faster and less > energy-consuming than general-purpose hardware that has to interpret a > binary. > **For one, memory/disk bus operations are limited only to actual data, > without requiring additional bus operations to fetch code.** > Data can be connected directly from the output of one computational > sub-unit to the input of another, without requiring (as in the > general-purpose hardware case) that the intermediate outputs be placed in > general-purpose storage register (which, as noted, takes energy to *change* > its contents, and as general-purpose storage will also be used to hold > *other* intermediate outputs). > Specialized HDDs can arise as well which are optimized for whatever access > pattern your scheme requires, and that would also outperform > general-purpose HDDs as well. > > Further optimizations may also exist in an ASIC context that are not > readily visible but which are likely to be hidden somewhere --- the more > complicated your program design, the more likely it is that you will not > readily see such hidden optimizations that can be achieved by ASICs (xref > ASICBOOST). > > In short, even with memory-hardness, an ASIC will arise which might need > to be connected to an array of (possibly specialized) HDDs but which will > still outperform your general-purpose hardware connected to an array of > general-purpose storage. > > Indeed, various storage solutions already have different specializations: > SMR HDDs replace tape drives, PMR HDDs serve as caches of SMR HDDs, SSDs > serve as caches of PMR HDDs. > An optimized technology stack like that can outperform a generic HDD. > > You cannot fight the inevitability of ASICs and other specialized > hardware, just as you cannot fight specialization. > > You puny humans must specialize in order to achieve the heights of your > civilization --- I can bet you 547 satoshis that you yourself cannot farm > your own food, you specialize in software engineering of some kind and just > pay a farmer to harvest your food for you. > Indeed, you probably do not pay a farmer directly, but pay an intermediary > that specializes in packing food for transport from the farm to your > domicile. which itself probably delegates the actual transporting to > another specialist. > Similarly, ASICs will arise and focus on particularly high-value fixed > computations, inevitably. > > > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > >
Good morning Andrew,
Quoted text (1 line)
> 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 the competition w/ decent levels of fault tolerance. I myself am running an extremely large scale open distributed computing pipeline, and can tell you for certain that what is out there is insane. In regards to the argument of generic HDDs and CPUs, the algorithmic implementation I am providing would likely make them more adaptable. More than likely, evidently there would be specialized HDDs similar to BurstCoin Miners, and 128-core CPUs, and all that. This could be inevitable, but the main point is providing access to other forms of computation along w/ ASICs. At the very least, the generic guys can experience it, and other infrastructures can have some form of compatibility.
What would the advantage of this be?
As I see it, changing the underlying algorithm is simply an attempt to reverse history, by requiring a new strain of specialization to be started instead of continuing the trend of optimizing SHA256d very very well.
I think it may be better to push *through* rather than *back*, and instead spread the optimization of SHA256d-specific hardware so widely that anyone with 2 BTC liquidity in one location has no particular advantage over anyone with 2 BTC liquidity in another location. For one, I expect that there will be fewer patentable surprises remaining with SHA256d than any newer, much more complicated construction.
Regards, ZmnSCPxj
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 BTC, and why can't highly specialized HPC clusters mine in similar ways to many of the large ASIC farms? Like I said the design and implementation needs to be correct for that to work, and I intended to look towards improving the algo to get the best of both worlds. In regards to SHA256d, that is an entirely different discussion, but even if one was to stick to SHA256d for an hashing algo, there are still implementations of PoW likely more adaptable.
Best regards, Andrew
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021, 2:56 AM ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com> wrote:
Quoted text (34 lines)
> Good morning Andrew, > > > 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 the competition w/ > decent levels of fault tolerance. I myself am running an extremely large > scale open distributed computing pipeline, and can tell you for certain > that what is out there is insane. In regards to the argument of generic > HDDs and CPUs, the algorithmic implementation I am providing would likely > make them more adaptable. More than likely, evidently there would be > specialized HDDs similar to BurstCoin Miners, and 128-core CPUs, and all > that. This could be inevitable, but the main point is providing access to > other forms of computation along w/ ASICs. At the very least, the generic > guys can experience it, and other infrastructures can have some form of > compatibility. > > What would the advantage of this be? > > As I see it, changing the underlying algorithm is simply an attempt to > reverse history, by requiring a new strain of specialization to be started > instead of continuing the trend of optimizing SHA256d very very well. > > I think it may be better to push *through* rather than *back*, and instead > spread the optimization of SHA256d-specific hardware so widely that anyone > with 2 BTC liquidity in one location has no particular advantage over > anyone with 2 BTC liquidity in another location. > For one, I expect that there will be fewer patentable surprises remaining > with SHA256d than any newer, much more complicated construction. > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj >