From: Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox•net>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Michael Dubrovsky <mike@powx•org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Low Energy Bitcoin PoW
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 02:18:24 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB0O3SUm0JJ7rdQZNuH+6AKhC3SiXSsoBAoGpLZS7YJawWBS3Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZFVpoVGcwTTpDDlAXLn8cCwic0l40b3DmE_UoKIv4IvmFDDX9W2F1sRHYwido1X7OK0fX1QAx5J8I5DokM4pcIKziNAgAwc6emrHulfbRE8=@protonmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1653 bytes --]
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:47 PM ZmnSCPxj:
>
> When considering any new proof-of-foo, it is best to consider all effects
> until you reach the base physics of the arrow of time, at which point you
> will realize it is ultimately just another proof-of-work anyway.
>
Let's not simplify away economic considerations, such as externalities.
The whole debate about the current PoW is about negative externalities
related to energy production.
Depending on the details, CAPEX (R&D, real-estate, construction,
production) may have less externalities, and if that's the case, we should
be interested in adopting a PoW that is intensive in these types of CAPEX.
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 2:20 PM Keagan McClelland wrote:
First it just pushes the energy consumption upstream to the chip
> manufacturing process, rather than eliminating it. And it may trade some
> marginal amount of the energy consumption for the set of resources it takes
> to educate and create chip manufacturers. The only way to avoid that cost
> being funneled back into more energy consumption [...]
>
I challenge you to substantiate these assertions. Real-estate and human
cognitive work are not energy intensive and are a major factor in the
expected costs of some alternative PoWs. The expected mining effort is
such that the cost will reach the expected reward, no more, so there is
every reason to believe that energy consumption will be small compared to
the current PoW.
Therefore, the total associated negative externalities for the alternative
PoWs may well be much lower than the externalities of energy production.
This needs detailed analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2195 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-18 9:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-17 19:32 Bogdan Penkovsky
2021-05-17 21:13 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-05-18 6:46 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 9:18 ` Devrandom [this message]
2021-05-18 10:58 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 11:05 ` mike
2021-05-18 11:36 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 11:43 ` mike
2021-05-18 11:58 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 12:17 ` mike
2021-05-18 12:22 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 12:58 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 10:59 ` mike
2021-05-18 12:46 ` Claus Ehrenberg
2021-05-18 16:47 ` Keagan McClelland
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=CAB0O3SUm0JJ7rdQZNuH+6AKhC3SiXSsoBAoGpLZS7YJawWBS3Q@mail.gmail.com \
--to=c1.bitcoin@niftybox$(echo .)net \
--cc=ZmnSCPxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=mike@powx$(echo .)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