Bitcoin's security is derived from the energy consumption of mining, so reducing the overall expenditure would be an objective decrease in resilience. As a miner, your efficiency at converting energy into hashpower is the driving factor in your profitability, so this and any other future attempts to decrease the cost of attacking Bitcoin receives a hard NACK from me.
If you're concerned about missing out on the subsidy or fee revenue, grab any number of the sub-500mSAT USB miners and get access to cheap power. Sincerely, Eric Martindale, relentless maker. Founder & CEO, Fabric, Inc. <https://fabric.fm> +1 (919) 374-2020 On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 9:41 AM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@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 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-boun...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> on > behalf of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> > *Sent:* Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM > *To:* Devrandom <c1.devran...@niftybox.net> > *Cc:* Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@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 < > loneroassociat...@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.devran...@niftybox.net> wrote: > > Hi Ryan and Andrew, > > On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:42 AM Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@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@lists.linuxfoundation.org > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
