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 t
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 I
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:48 PM LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH via
bitcoin-dev wrote:
> My concern was that the more complex scripts allow obfuscation of the Pay To
> address
This is no different from options available in P2SH, or from the
obfuscation achieved by generating a new address for a pa
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:32 PM Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
> So that leads me to believe here that the folks who oppose LOT=true
> primarily have an issue with forced signaling, which personally I
> don't care about as much, not the idea of committing to a UASF from
> the get go.
The
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
GitHu
On Friday 05 March 2021 14:51:12 Ryan Grant via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 7:32 PM Keagan McClelland via bitcoin-dev
>
> wrote:
> > So that leads me to believe here that the folks who oppose LOT=true
> > primarily have an issue with forced signaling, which personally I
> > don't c
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
thi
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.
https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Efficiency-Pa
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 less
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_
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
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. Y
On the ##taproot-activation IRC channel, Russell O'Connor recently
proposed a modification of the "Let's see what happens" activation
proposal.[1] The idea received significant discussion and seemed
acceptable to several people who could not previously agree on a
proposal (although this doesn't nec
Thank you for resurfacing and collating this concept.
At this time I don't see major issues with this course of action and think
it represents not only a reasonable compromise between all different
perspectives, but also gives us an opportunity to learn more about less
'slow' yet safe consensus up
I like this idea.
In terms of actual parameters, I propose that we base this Speedy Trial
off of BIP 8 with the following parameters:
* start height = 681408
* timeout height = 695520
* lockinontimeout = False
* signaling bit = 2
* threshold = 1815/2016 blocks (90%)
For the extended lockin period
15 matches
Mail list logo
