From: Lonero Foundation <loneroassociation@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP Proposal: Consensus (hard fork) PoST Datastore for Energy Efficient Mining
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2021 00:45:53 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+YkXXwTEvq=Rk=iSgyrSYr-Q0G=Ov3jdMk8saUnA8q5p-aKuw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <296-604d1600-db-42a1fb80@93437088>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4951 bytes --]
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
content.
Best regards, Andrew
On Sat, Mar 13, 2021, 2:44 PM email@yancy•lol <email@yancy•lol> wrote:
> 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 <
> loneroassociation@gmail•com> wrote:
>
>
> 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 <email@yancy•lol> wrote:
>
>> 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 <loneroassociation@gmail•com>:
>>
>> 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@yancy•lol <email@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@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@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@yancy•lol <email@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@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> …
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-14 5:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-04 23:42 Lonero Foundation
2021-03-05 13:42 ` Ryan Grant
[not found] ` <CAB0O3SVNyr_t23Y0LyT0mSaf6LONFRLYJ8qzO7rcdJFnrGccFw@mail.gmail.com>
2021-03-05 15:12 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-05 16:16 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-05 21:11 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-03-05 21:21 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-06 0:41 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-03-06 0:57 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-06 15:21 ` Ricardo Filipe
[not found] ` <CA+YkXXyP=BQ_a42J=RE7HJFcJ73atyrt4KWKUG8LbsbW=u4b5w@mail.gmail.com>
2021-03-08 23:40 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-11 15:29 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-12 15:02 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-03-12 16:54 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-12 22:37 ` email
2021-03-12 23:21 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-12 23:31 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-13 8:13 ` email
2021-03-13 15:02 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-13 15:45 ` yancy
2021-03-13 17:11 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-13 19:44 ` email
2021-03-14 5:45 ` Lonero Foundation [this message]
2021-03-17 0:24 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-03-17 5:05 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-03-17 5:59 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-17 6:56 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-03-17 7:06 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-14 12:36 ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
2021-03-14 14:32 ` Thomas Hartman
2021-03-16 18:22 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-15 2:02 ` Eric Martindale
2021-03-15 2:32 ` Lonero Foundation
[not found] ` <CA+YkXXyMUQtdSvjuMPQO71LpPb8qFdy-LTSrA8FEbeWMbPWa4w@mail.gmail.com>
2021-03-15 2:58 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-05 20:53 Eric Voskuil
[not found] <CA+YkXXzfEyeXYMyPKL20S+2VVRZVuHRT6eRgX56FBgG_A+uVSw@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <12480994-451A-4256-8EFA-4741B3EC2006@voskuil.org>
2021-03-05 22:03 ` Lonero Foundation
2021-03-05 22:49 ` Eric Voskuil
2021-03-05 23:10 ` Lonero Foundation
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CA+YkXXwTEvq=Rk=iSgyrSYr-Q0G=Ov3jdMk8saUnA8q5p-aKuw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=loneroassociation@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox