{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1f2nxequ09nz44775vv6lkffq2plzqvrqramnk29eddmwcc9z7jys8ms289","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1f2nxequ09nz44775vv6lkffq2plzqvrqramnk29eddmwcc9z7jys8ms289","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-03-05\n📝 Original message:\u003e A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and non-asic\nspecific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit from a hybrid\nproof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't\ndisenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.\n\nMy instincts tell me that this is an outlandish claim. Do you have\nsupporting evidence for this?\n\nKeagan\n\nOn Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:22 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Actually I mentioned a proof of space and time hybrid which is much\n\u003e different than staking. Sorry to draw for the confusion as PoC is more\n\u003e commonly used then PoST.\n\u003e There is a way to make PoC cryptographically compatible w/ Proof of Work\n\u003e as it normally stands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_space\n\u003e It has rarely been done though given the technological complexity of being\n\u003e both CPU compatible and memory-hard compatible. There are lots of benefits\n\u003e outside of the realm of efficiency, and I already looked into numerous\n\u003e fault tolerant designs as well and what others in the cryptography\n\u003e community attempted to propose. The actual argument you have only against\n\u003e this is the Proof of Memory fallacy, which is only partially true. Given\n\u003e how the current hashing algorithm works, hard memory allocation wouldn't be\n\u003e of much benefit given it is more optimized for CPU/ASIC specific mining.\n\u003e I'm working towards a hybrid mechanism that fixes that. BTW: The way\n\u003e Bitcoin currently stands in its cryptography still needs updating\n\u003e regardless. If someone figures out NP hardness or the halting problem the\n\u003e traditional rule of millions of years to break all of Bitcoin's\n\u003e cryptography now comes down to minutes. Bitcoin is going to have to\n\u003e eventually radically upgrade their cryptography and hashing algo in the\n\u003e future regardless. I want to integrate some form of NP complexity in\n\u003e regards to the hybrid cryptography I'm aiming to provide which includes a\n\u003e polynomial time algorithm in the cryptography. More than likely the first\n\u003e version of my BTC hard fork will be coded in a way where integrating such\n\u003e complexity in the future only requires a soft fork or minor upgrade to its\n\u003e chain.\n\u003e\n\u003e In regards to the argument, \"As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in\n\u003e the hashing algorithm will invalidate the enormous amount of capital\n\u003e expenditure by mining entities and disincentivize future capital\n\u003e expenditure into mining hardware that may compute these more \"useful\"\n\u003e proofs of work.\"\n\u003e\n\u003e A large portion of BTC is already mined through AWS servers and non-asic\n\u003e specific hardware anyways. A majority of them would benefit from a hybrid\n\u003e proof, and the fact that it is hybrid in that manner wouldn't\n\u003e disenfranchise currently optimized mining entities as well.\n\u003e\n\u003e There are other reasons why a cryptography upgrade like this is\n\u003e beneficial. Theoretically one can argue BItcoin isn't fully decentralized.\n\u003e It is few unsolved mathematical proofs away from being entirely broken. My\n\u003e goal outside of efficiency is to build cryptography in a way that prevents\n\u003e such an event from happening in the future, if it was to ever happen. I\n\u003e have various research in regards to this area and work alot with\n\u003e distributed computing. I believe if the BTC community likes such a\n\u003e proposal, I would single handedly be able to build the cryptographic proof\n\u003e myself (though would like as many open source contributors as I can get :)\n\u003e\n\u003e Anyways just something to consider. We are in the same space in regards to\n\u003e what warrants a shitcoin or the whole argument against staking.\n\u003e\n\u003e https://hackernoon.com/ethereum-you-are-a-centralized-cryptocurrency-stop-telling-us-that-you-arent-pi3s3yjl\n\u003e\n\u003e Best regards,  Andrew\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 4:11 PM Keagan McClelland \u003c\n\u003e keagan.mcclelland at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be\n\u003e\u003e \"useless\" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was\n\u003e\u003e useful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when\n\u003e\u003e submitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction\n\u003e\u003e will be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different\n\u003e\u003e context and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades\n\u003e\u003e the security of the network in the process.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e As a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will\n\u003e\u003e invalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities\n\u003e\u003e and disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may\n\u003e\u003e compute these more \"useful\" proofs of work. This is because any change in\n\u003e\u003e the POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the\n\u003e\u003e future. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no\n\u003e\u003e entity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at\n\u003e\u003e large. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed\n\u003e\u003e by entities with a vested interest in deciding what the new \"useful\" proof\n\u003e\u003e of work should be.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e All of these things make the Bitcoin network worse off.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Keagan\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my\n\u003e\u003e\u003e cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles\n\u003e\u003e\u003e problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC\n\u003e\u003e\u003e network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I do\n\u003e\u003e\u003e want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regards to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If things such\n\u003e\u003e\u003e as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very\n\u003e\u003e\u003e least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at\n\u003e\u003e\u003e least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just\n\u003e\u003e\u003e let me know on the preferred format?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Best regards, Andrew\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation \u003c\n\u003e\u003e\u003e loneroassociation at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Best regards, Andrew\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom \u003cc1.devrandom at niftybox.net\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Hi Ryan and Andrew,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e   https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e     \"Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work\"\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e     on | 04 Aug 2015\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e market will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.  It does\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e and that we should move to other resources.  I would argue that the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e negative externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e so the point is likely moot.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e\u003e\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e _______________________________________________\n\u003e bitcoin-dev mailing list\n\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\n\u003e https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev\n\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210305/654d8299/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}