Erik Aronesty [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2021-03-16 📝 Original message:Any proposed hard fork ...
📅 Original date posted:2021-03-16
📝 Original message:Any proposed hard fork will wind up being some sort of Bitcoin sv thing
no matter what you propose or no matter how awesome it is they'll be many
people in the community who would prefer to continue business as usual.
which I'd like to point out seems to be working very, very well.
so you should go into it with open eyes and start a fork right from the
get-go.
This is why I'm a fan of proof of burn. you can also use burned main
chain as a way of mining on the new chain.
the interesting thing is that you can calculate proof of work equivalence
in a meaningful way if you use Bitcoin as a reference, and the total mined
supply of the new coin, as another reference point.
That would enable you to switch it entirely to burned coins as a proxy for
proof of work, and enable people who have Bitcoin to meaningfully
participate in the new network.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:02 AM Lonero Foundation <
loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and
> key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric
> cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a
> different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I
> should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a
> few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to
> not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but
> enough with the sarcasm.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email at yancy.lol <email at yancy.lol> wrote:
>
>> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like
>> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as
>> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you
>> were a bot spamming the list.
>>
>>
>> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?
>> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what
>> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have
>> lost the war to our new centralized overlord?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Yancy
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <
>> loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation
>> cryptography in that aspect:
>> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html
>> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs
>> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.
>> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer
>> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all
>> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a
>> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a
>> repository and call it a day.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <
>> loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a
>>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in
>>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an
>>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the
>>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes
>>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once
>>> this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints
>>> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus
>>> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I
>>> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft,
>>> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to
>>> working on technological implementation.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email at yancy.lol <email at yancy.lol> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Andrew himself is an algo. The crypto training set must not be
>>>> very good.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Yancy
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in
>>>> relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I
>>>> might rephrase it.
>>>>
>>>> In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a
>>>> sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to
>>>> follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references
>>>> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.
>>>>
>>>> This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am
>>>> personally looking into developing as a hard fork.
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to
>>>> references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the
>>>> cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik at q32.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages
>>>>> and some degree of technical merit.
>>>>>
>>>>> i suggest you start here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
>>>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
>>>>>
>>>>> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always
>>>>> suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
>>>>> equivalent. you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
>>>>> burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> - erik
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>>>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here:
>>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to
>>>>> development/reference implementation.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Best regards, Andrew
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <
>>>>> loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo:
>>>>> https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki
>>>>> >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into
>>>>> draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what
>>>>> I want to work on.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Best regards, Andrew
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <
>>>>> loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> [off-list]
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before
>>>>> doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <
>>>>> ricardojdfilipe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> As said before, you are free to create the BIP in your own
>>>>> repository
>>>>> >>>> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a
>>>>> PR
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>>>> >>>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> escreveu no dia sábado,
>>>>> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58:
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> > 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
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> >>>> > 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/be40d50c/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:Any proposed hard fork will wind up being some sort of Bitcoin sv thing
no matter what you propose or no matter how awesome it is they'll be many
people in the community who would prefer to continue business as usual.
which I'd like to point out seems to be working very, very well.
so you should go into it with open eyes and start a fork right from the
get-go.
This is why I'm a fan of proof of burn. you can also use burned main
chain as a way of mining on the new chain.
the interesting thing is that you can calculate proof of work equivalence
in a meaningful way if you use Bitcoin as a reference, and the total mined
supply of the new coin, as another reference point.
That would enable you to switch it entirely to burned coins as a proxy for
proof of work, and enable people who have Bitcoin to meaningfully
participate in the new network.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:02 AM Lonero Foundation <
loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and
> key validation. I know hashing is for SHA, but was referring to asymmetric
> cryptography in regards to the key validation. I should have used a
> different term though instead of, "In regards to cryptographic hashing,", I
> should have stated in regards to cryptographic key validation. There are a
> few other dubious clarifications or minor edits I should make in order to
> not draw confusion. I will do a repo update today. Honest mistake, but
> enough with the sarcasm.
>
> Best regards, Andrew
>
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 3:13 AM email at yancy.lol <email at yancy.lol> wrote:
>
>> My email was not intended as an insult. Your proposal seemed a bit like
>> gibberish and made some obvious mistakes as pointed out before (such as
>> conflating secp256k1 with sha256), and so I was genuinely curious if you
>> were a bot spamming the list.
>>
>>
>> Maybe a more interesting topic is, can GPT3 be used to generate a BIP?
>> How long before our AI overlord produces improvements to Bitcoin? At what
>> point will the AI have more than 51% of commit frequency? Will we have
>> lost the war to our new centralized overlord?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Yancy
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, March 13, 2021 00:31 CET, Lonero Foundation <
>> loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Also, I already stated I was referring to signature validation
>> cryptography in that aspect:
>> https://wizardforcel.gitbooks.io/practical-cryptography-for-developers-book/content/digital-signatures/ecdsa-sign-verify-examples.html
>> My BIP has a primary purpose in regards to what I want to develop proofs
>> for and the different cryptographic elements I want to develop proofs for.
>> That said to those who disagree with the premise, I do prefer
>> constructive feedback over insults or making fun of one another. After all
>> this is an improvement proposal with a specific purpose aiming to develop a
>> specific thing, not a guy who is just wanting to copy and paste a
>> repository and call it a day.
>>
>> Best regards, Andrew
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 6:21 PM Lonero Foundation <
>> loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, I also want to emphasize that my main point isn't just to create a
>>> BTC hardfork or become another Bitcoin Cash, Gold, or SV. The main point in
>>> regards to this BIP actually expands POW rather than replaces or creates an
>>> alternative. Many of the problems faced in regards to security in the
>>> future as well as sustainability is something I believe lots of the changes
>>> I am proposing can fix. In regards to technological implementation, once
>>> this is assigned draft status I am more than willing to create preprints
>>> explaining the cryptography, hashing algorithm improvements, and consensus
>>> that I am working on. This is a highly technologically complex idea that I
>>> am willing to "call my bluff on" and expand upon. As for it being a draft,
>>> I think this is a good starting point at least for draft status prior to
>>> working on technological implementation.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 5:37 PM email at yancy.lol <email at yancy.lol> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Andrew himself is an algo. The crypto training set must not be
>>>> very good.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> -Yancy
>>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 17:54 CET, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <
>>>> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in
>>>> relation to that section as well as the hashing related to those keys. I
>>>> might rephrase it.
>>>>
>>>> In regards to technical merit, the main purpose of the BIP is to get a
>>>> sense of the idea. Once I get assigned a BIP draft #, I am willing to
>>>> follow it up with many preprints or publications to go in the references
>>>> implementation section and start dev work before upgrading to final status.
>>>>
>>>> This will take about 400 hours of my time, but is something I am
>>>> personally looking into developing as a hard fork.
>>>>
>>>> Keep in mind this is a draft, so after it is assigned a number to
>>>> references I do at the very least hope to describe various parts of the
>>>> cryptographic proofs and algorithmic structure I am hoping for.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 10:03 AM Erik Aronesty <erik at q32.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> secp236k1 isn't a hashing algo. your BIP needs about 10 more pages
>>>>> and some degree of technical merit.
>>>>>
>>>>> i suggest you start here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proof_of_burn
>>>>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225690.0
>>>>>
>>>>> proof-of-burn is a nice alternative to proof-of-work. i always
>>>>> suspected that, if designed correctly, it could be a proven
>>>>> equivalent. you could spin up a fork of bitcoin that allows aged,
>>>>> burned, coins instead of POW that would probably work just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> - erik
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:56 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>>>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hi, I have submitted the BIP Pull Request here:
>>>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1084
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Hoping to receive a BIP # for the draft prior to
>>>>> development/reference implementation.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Best regards, Andrew
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021, 6:40 PM Lonero Foundation <
>>>>> loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Hi, here is the list to the BIP proposal on my own repo:
>>>>> https://github.com/Mentors4EDU/bip-amkn-posthyb/blob/main/bip-draft.mediawiki
>>>>> >> Can I submit a pull request on the BIPs repo for this to go into
>>>>> draft mode? Also, I think this provides at least some more insight on what
>>>>> I want to work on.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Best regards, Andrew
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:42 AM Lonero Foundation <
>>>>> loneroassociation at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> [off-list]
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Okay. I will do so and post the link here for discussion before
>>>>> doing a pull request on BIP's repo as the best way to handle it.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Best regards, Andrew
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2021, 10:21 AM Ricardo Filipe <
>>>>> ricardojdfilipe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> As said before, you are free to create the BIP in your own
>>>>> repository
>>>>> >>>> and bring it to discussion on the mailing list. then you can do a
>>>>> PR
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
>>>>> >>>> <bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> escreveu no dia sábado,
>>>>> >>>> 6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58:
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> > 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
>>>>> >>>> >
>>>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> >>>> > 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/be40d50c/attachment-0001.html>;