The advantage is simple, access to more computational opportunities means a
more scalable network and other reasons, including further options for
optimization. There are also lots of reasons to believe a huge demand of
unmet needs in this space. Why force people to mine Chia if they want to
mine
I wouldn't fully discount general purpose hardware or hardware outside of
the realm of ASICS. BOINC (https://cds.cern.ch/record/800111/files/p1099.pdf)
implements a decent distributed computing protocol (granted it isn't a
cryptocurrency), but it far computes data at a much cheaper cost compared
Good morning Andrew,
> I wouldn't fully discount general purpose hardware or hardware outside of the
> realm of ASICS. BOINC (https://cds.cern.ch/record/800111/files/p1099.pdf)
> implements a decent distributed computing protocol (granted it isn't a
> cryptocurrency), but it far computes data
Good morning Andrew,
Looking over the text...
> # I am looking towards integrating memory hard compatibility w/ the mining
> algorithm. Memory hard computation allows for time and space complexity for
> data storage functionality, and there is a way this can likely be implemented
> without
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
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.
> > ____
lliamson
>>
>>
>> m. 0487135719
>> f. +61261470192
>>
>>
>> This email does not constitute a general advice. Please disregard this
>> email if misdelivered.
>> --
>> *From:* bitcoin-dev on
>> behalf of Lone
;> KING JAMES HRMH
>>>> Great British Empire
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> The Australian
>>>> LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH (& HMRH)
>>>> of Hougun Manor & Glencoe & British Empire
>>>> MR. Damian A. J
red.
>
> From: bitcoin-dev on behalf
> of Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
> Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM
> To: Devrandom
> Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
> Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoS
rom: bitcoin-dev on behalf of
Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
Sent: Saturday, 6 March 2021 3:16 AM
To: Devrandom
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore
for Energy Efficient Mining
Also in regards to my other email, I forgo
I have added quite a bit more details. I haven't made any UML diagrams just
yet. I did add a basic non-technical infographic though, and more then
likely making a technical UML for the cryptographic mechanisms will be on
my to-do list. I have also updated the terminology and added a bit more
My mistake for thinking your text was generated text, and my humor was not
meant to be directed at you, so apologies if you took it personally.
PS: The AI overlord is no joke
Cheers,
-Yancy
On Saturday, March 13, 2021 18:11 CET, Lonero Foundation
wrote:
Hi, no worries. I made the changes
Hi, no worries. I made the changes now in the GitHub repository and pull
request. I'm hoping for a BIP # soon. Thanks for the feedback, and I guess
the sense of humor.
Best regards, Andrew
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 10:45 AM yancy wrote:
> Ok thanks. Using the correct terminology helps people
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
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
wrote:
Hi, I awkwardly phrased that part, I was referring to key validation in
relation to that section as well as the
Ok thanks. Using the correct terminology helps people understand what you're
talking about and take you seriously.
Cheers,
-Yancy
Mar 13, 2021 4:02:18 PM Lonero Foundation :
> Hi, I know the differences between the cryptographic hashing algorithm and
> key validation. I know hashing is for
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
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
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
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
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
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
wrote:
> Hi, here is the list to the BIP
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.
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
escreveu no dia sábado,
6/03/2021 à(s) 08:58:
>
> I know Ethereum had an outlandishly large percentage of nodes running on
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
> 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
Hi, in regards to my research this is just one of my patents:
https://patents.google.com/patent/CN110825707A
This isn't related to this proposal but gives you a general depth of
understanding in regards to the technology and field I'm working on in
reducing redundancy and efficiency. You aren't a
FYI it’s generally considered bad form repost a private thread, especially one
you initiate.
...
It’s typically more effective to generate some community support before
actually submitting a BIP. Otherwise the process gets easily overwhelmed. This
is likely why you aren’t getting a response.
Hi, Eric. Chia's network is a bad example. They go after energy consumption
in the wrong way entirely. True, it requires a comparable cost of hardware.
I am trying to tackle cryptography in a way that goes much beyond that.
Part of what I am doing includes lowering invalided proofs while trying to
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:
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
Hi Andrew,
Do you mean that you can reduce the cost of executing the cryptography at a
comparable level of security? If so this will only have the effect of
increasing the amount of it that is required to consume the same cost.
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
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
On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 9:39 AM Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> Hello, I want to start a new BIP proposal aiming to tackle some of
> the energy efficiency issues w/ Bitcoin mining. Excuse my ignorance
> given this is my first time making a BIP proposal, but is there a
> specific format
Hello, I want to start a new BIP proposal aiming to tackle some of the
energy efficiency issues w/ Bitcoin mining. Excuse my ignorance given this
is my first time making a BIP proposal, but is there a specific format I
need to follow? Do I just make a draft on my personal GitHub or need to
attach
36 matches
Mail list logo
