{"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:It is important to understand that it is critical for the work to be\n\"useless\" in order for the security model to be the same. If the work was\nuseful it provides an avenue for actors to have nothing at stake when\nsubmitting a proof of work, since the marginal cost of block construction\nwill be lessened by the fact that the work was useful in a different\ncontext and therefore would have been done anyway. This actually degrades\nthe security of the network in the process.\n\nAs a separate issue, proposing a hard fork in the hashing algorithm will\ninvalidate the enormous amount of capital expenditure by mining entities\nand disincentivize future capital expenditure into mining hardware that may\ncompute these more \"useful\" proofs of work. This is because any change in\nthe POW algorithm will be considered unstable and subject to change in the\nfuture. This puts the entire network at even more risk meaning that no\nentity is tying their own interests to that of the bitcoin network at\nlarge. It also puts the developers in a position where they can be bribed\nby entities with a vested interest in deciding what the new \"useful\" proof\nof work should be.\n\nAll of these things make the Bitcoin network worse off.\n\nKeagan\n\nOn Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:48 PM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\n\u003e Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my\n\u003e cryptography proposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles\n\u003e problems such as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC\n\u003e network could be vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I do\n\u003e want to do this BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regards to\n\u003e this manner and can provide useful insight to the community. If things such\n\u003e as bigger block height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very\n\u003e least an upgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at\n\u003e least warrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just\n\u003e let me know on the preferred format?\n\u003e\n\u003e Best regards, Andrew\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation \u003c\n\u003e loneroassociation at gmail.com\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to\n\u003e\u003e renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the\n\u003e\u003e most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness\n\u003e\u003e of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki\n\u003e\u003e format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Best regards, Andrew\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom \u003cc1.devrandom at niftybox.net\u003e\n\u003e\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Hi Ryan and Andrew,\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e   https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e     \"Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work\"\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e     on | 04 Aug 2015\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining\n\u003e\u003e\u003e market will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.  It does\n\u003e\u003e\u003e not prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities and\n\u003e\u003e\u003e that we should move to other resources.  I would argue that the negative\n\u003e\u003e\u003e externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so the\n\u003e\u003e\u003e point is likely moot.\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\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/20210305/24e78df4/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}