{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","author_name":"npub1raukftn2mkv6hkvhgm04tmtn0sknuc5pfzedsflz58jxved654xqe8mlyu","author_url":"https://nostr.ae/npub1raukftn2mkv6hkvhgm04tmtn0sknuc5pfzedsflz58jxved654xqe8mlyu","provider_name":"njump","provider_url":"https://nostr.ae","html":"📅 Original date posted:2021-03-05\n📝 Original message:Also in regards to my other email, I forgot to iterate that my cryptography\nproposal helps behind the efficiency category but also tackles problems\nsuch as NP-Completeness or Halting which is something the BTC network could\nbe vulnerable to in the future. For sake of simplicity, I do want to do\nthis BIP because it tackles lots of the issues in regards to this manner\nand can provide useful insight to the community. If things such as bigger\nblock height have been proposed as hard forks, I feel at the very least an\nupgrade regarding the hashing algorithm and cryptography does at least\nwarrant some discussion. Anyways I hope I can send you my BIP, just let me\nknow on the preferred format?\n\nBest regards, Andrew\n\nOn Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:12 AM Lonero Foundation \u003cloneroassociation at gmail.com\u003e\nwrote:\n\n\u003e Hi, this isn't about the energy efficient argument in regards to\n\u003e renewables or mining devices but a better cryptography layer to get the\n\u003e most out of your hashing for validation. I do understand the arbitrariness\n\u003e of it, but do want to still propose a document. Do I use the Media Wiki\n\u003e format on GitHub and just attach it as my proposal?\n\u003e\n\u003e Best regards, Andrew\n\u003e\n\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021, 10:07 AM Devrandom \u003cc1.devrandom at niftybox.net\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Hi Ryan and Andrew,\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev \u003c\n\u003e\u003e bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e   https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/\n\u003e\u003e\u003e     \"Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work\"\n\u003e\u003e\u003e     on | 04 Aug 2015\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Just to belabor this a bit, the paper demonstrates that the mining market\n\u003e\u003e will tend to expend resources equivalent to miner reward.  It does not\n\u003e\u003e prove that mining work has to expend *energy* as a primary cost.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Some might argue that energy expenditure has negative externalities and\n\u003e\u003e that we should move to other resources.  I would argue that the negative\n\u003e\u003e externalities will go away soon because of the move to renewables, so the\n\u003e\u003e point is likely moot.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210305/a6a1e694/attachment-0001.html\u003e"}