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@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-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
