LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-03-14 📝 Original message:Good Afternoon, It is ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-03-14
📝 Original message: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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM
To: Devrandom <c1.devrandom at niftybox.net>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at 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 at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210314/83f7336d/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message: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 at lists.linuxfoundation.org> on behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM
To: Devrandom <c1.devrandom at niftybox.net>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev at 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 at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210314/83f7336d/attachment.html>;