Published on: 2021-03-17T07:06:32+00:00
In a recent email exchange on the Bitcoin-dev mailing list, there was a discussion about improving the cryptography layer for validation in Bitcoin mining. Andrew proposed a document suggesting a better cryptography algorithm that could reduce costs while maintaining security. However, Devrandom argued that the negative externalities of energy expenditure would soon be eliminated due to the adoption of renewable energy sources.The conversation also touched on the topic of proof of work (PoW) and its relation to energy consumption. Ryan Grant shared an article arguing that nothing is cheaper than proof of work, but it did not prove that energy expenditure has to be the primary cost of mining work. The paper mentioned that the mining market tends to expend resources equivalent to miner rewards, but it did not provide conclusive evidence about energy consumption as the primary cost.Andrew had also mentioned the idea of a staking hybrid, which could change the dynamics and economic forces in Bitcoin mining. However, staking was considered cryptodynamically insecure and not censorship-resistant, so it wouldn't likely be seen as a contribution to Bitcoin. Other attempts to improve energy efficiency were either disguised proof of work or repurposing computing power, neither of which would lead to a reduction in dedicated energy consumption.In another email exchange with the Lonero Foundation, Andrew proposed a cryptography proposal to improve hashing efficiency and address vulnerabilities in the BTC network. He believed that this upgrade should be discussed, considering the suggestion of bigger block height proposals as hard forks. Andrew asked about the preferred format for his proposal.Devrandom responded to another email by discussing the argument that proof of work is the cheapest method for mining. They pointed out that while the mining market tends to use resources equivalent to miner rewards, it does not necessarily mean that energy expenditure is the primary cost. Devrandom also mentioned that negative externalities from energy consumption may decrease as the move towards renewables progresses.The email thread focused on the discussion of a better cryptography layer for validation and the proposal of a document. It did not directly address the energy-efficient argument for renewables or mining devices. However, a paper was linked that suggested the mining market tends to use resources equivalent to rewards without proving energy expenditure as the primary cost. The debate revolved around the potential negative externalities of energy consumption and the potential reduction through renewable energy sources.In a separate email to the bitcoin-dev mailing list, a member of the Lonero Foundation proposed a BIP to address energy efficiency concerns in Bitcoin mining. However, another member disagreed with the proposal, citing previous discussions that rejected similar ideas. Links were provided to BIP 2, which outlines the BIP process, and a blog post advocating for the value of proof of work. The conversation shifted towards whether technically well-constructed proposals guaranteed to be rejected should be allowed in the BIP repository. It was suggested that such proposals should be unilaterally rejected as spam by the BIP Editor, but a moderation log should be maintained to ensure transparency and prevent censorship.The writer of one email sought guidance on creating a new BIP to tackle energy efficiency issues in Bitcoin mining. They were unsure about the format and whether to attach a README to their draft proposal on GitHub. Their proposed solution involved integrating a hybrid mining approach with proof of work and proof of stake for Bitcoin's SHA-256 hash algorithm. The writer, despite their background as a Quantum Engineer and Bioinformatics consultant, believed their proposal could be of interest and wanted to submit a detailed document explaining its workings.
Updated on: 2023-08-02T03:22:33.957304+00:00