rich1.0npub1raukftn2mkv6hkvhgm04tmtn0sknuc5pfzedsflz58jxved654xqe8mlyuhttps://nostr.ae/npub1raukftn2mkv6hkvhgm04tmtn0sknuc5pfzedsflz58jxved654xqe8mlyunjumphttps://nostr.ae📅 Original date posted:2021-03-05 📝 Original message: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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at niftybox.net> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Ryan and Andrew, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev < >>>>>> bitcoin-dev at 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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210305/598bc471/attachment.html>