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.
You mentioned a staking hybrid in your original post.
This would be a change to dynamics - the economic forces at work. Staking is not censorship resistant
and is therefore what I refer to as cryptodynamically insecure.
As such it wouldn’t likely be considered as a contribution to Bitcoin. It might of course be useful in some other context.
But BIPs are proposals aimed at Bitcoin improvement.
Non-staking attempts to improve energy efficiency are either proof of work in disguise, such as proof of memory:
or attempts to repurpose “wasteful” computing, such as by finding prime numbers, which does not imply a reduction in dedicated energy consumption.
Finally, waste and renewable energy approaches at “carbon” (vs energy) reduction must still consume the same in cost as the reward. In other words, the apparent benefit represents a temporary market shift, with advantage to first movers. The market will still consume what it consumes. If the hashing energy was free all reward consumption would shift to operations.
The motivation behind these attempts is naively understandable, but based on a false premise.
The one thing that reduces Bitcoin energy consumption is an increase in energy cost relative to block reward.
e
On Mar 5, 2021, at 07:30, Lonero Foundation via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> 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
Hi Ryan and Andrew,
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.