Lonero Foundation [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-03-16 📝 Original message:In regards to my BIP ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-03-16
📝 Original message:In regards to my BIP proposal, I finally added a bit more details to the
draft. So far an interesting discussion to say the least.
Best regards, Andrew
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 9:23 AM Thomas Hartman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> MY LORD HIS EXCELLENCY:
>
> It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning.
>
> Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to
> smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more
> profitable.
>
> To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you
> pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed.
>
> The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency,
> but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular
> free markets in energy.
>
> That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven
> underground.
>
> Your humble subject etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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 o
> ne 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> 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/20210316/8cd8a2b8/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:In regards to my BIP proposal, I finally added a bit more details to the
draft. So far an interesting discussion to say the least.
Best regards, Andrew
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021, 9:23 AM Thomas Hartman via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> MY LORD HIS EXCELLENCY:
>
> It is indeed a contest between free markets and central planning.
>
> Governments can in effect say, you are permitted to buy energy to
> smelt aluminum, but not to mine bitcoin, even if bitcoin is more
> profitable.
>
> To the extent that free markets in energy are suppressed, as you
> pointed out in china, bitcoin can indeed be suppressed.
>
> The solution is not to make bitcoin a centrally managed currency,
> but to fight hard for free speech, free markets, and in particular
> free markets in energy.
>
> That being said, bitcoin is designed to thrive even if driven
> underground.
>
> Your humble subject etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
> bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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 o
> ne 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> 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/20210316/8cd8a2b8/attachment-0001.html>;