From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
To: Devrandom <c1.bitcoin@niftybox•net>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Proposal: Low Energy Bitcoin PoW
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 10:58:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <WVZvU2OA12RoqS180g1B2ULVCACwaKtdF-75OWKcydI9NUxbaGefYjKAwUklzEef1bIWHghZIotDhCQuxIG5KBX14BmDCEz0wKbNJAkG-ak=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB0O3SUm0JJ7rdQZNuH+6AKhC3SiXSsoBAoGpLZS7YJawWBS3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Good morning devrandom,
> 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.
Then let us also not forget another important externality: possible optimizations of a new PoW algorithm that risk being put into some kind of exclusive patent.
I think with high probability that SHA256d as used by Bitcoin will no longer have an optimization as large in effect as ASICBOOST in the future, simply because there is a huge incentive to find such optimizations and Bitcoin has been using SHA256d for 12 years already, and we have already found ASICBOOST (and while patented, as I understand it the patent owner has promised not to enforce the patent --- my understanding may be wrong).
Any alternative PoW algorithm risks an ASICBOOST-like optimization that is currently unknown, but which will be discovered (and possibly patented by an owner that *will* enforce the patent, thus putting the entire ecosystem at direct conflict with legacy government structures) once there is a good incentive (i.e. use in Bitcoin) for it.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-18 10:59 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
2021-05-18 10:58 ` ZmnSCPxj [this message]
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='WVZvU2OA12RoqS180g1B2ULVCACwaKtdF-75OWKcydI9NUxbaGefYjKAwUklzEef1bIWHghZIotDhCQuxIG5KBX14BmDCEz0wKbNJAkG-ak=@protonmail.com' \
--to=zmnscpxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=c1.bitcoin@niftybox$(echo .)net \
/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