From nobody Mon Apr 26 11:29:36 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740AF3A2BF7 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:29:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tenebras-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K-bdDidSyPdt for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com (mail-lj1-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B6133A2BF1 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id u25so26954237ljg.7 for ; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:29:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tenebras-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=odfhqQ/EQXVaGdj12FEF4fAYue+0CUp0E5hkX6wvtNc=; b=BsNRl3hODelD2hvl0ISAvsWmdf3jIi9gwsODyRiNuSvE7e5dZsfEdEmISJfZYeMwVP mRnMB0dIiCO+TPK9DidCX4nBBEP3OxXUT4vQpmN6DY+ycxECSolGXNBaMbJCCFhD4vpe 3LO1ffbO17l9kTx6wfQw1g813k0vz152pScNGGOCiXn0U1dspX8fbIzzws8o4z9SjCBJ FQVXYxjuJliZ0eC29U83AYW6hdVenk+836CDIcPNTGiaxPJ8U5Tptn9ZZInkYYm4H7Ij ulX9vjnzT8Ux8eqYQNJiDM93+MVBTxJ5ZtMDGiiGr43Bt2URFyvHsxmsVKkbR/CoFQCg v8yQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=odfhqQ/EQXVaGdj12FEF4fAYue+0CUp0E5hkX6wvtNc=; b=YzbA2NNqEAI39pHuC1MNOndwNgSdpBT5EndqAAgb1OJ0xTqdE8z1OF34dfwaOFJ/uM XnS6uP6okig2BHqhovP3LTUKd9ZVjosW9jyAJW+Uf7kE7Mhh2v0hvpwkBVoZ42tDAoY7 XpW65KRfFecCnsRwBONvprHH7GrYCI2NNblkTCjkAGT2eu76wQdprDRhTiAGTX8vZf7S YBPBhpTVo/Da28XUSQ5AeH5G4la6JS85fK2GzU2vqJUExm+GHYAIwKd5fNXhbW6WleFk xesWDHHrsBzMuwu+5saGz5DgO79UUowaJ4RcMfcOOexIxI01/2c2LRuoN+5K9wrgi3iY 8S4A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5304dF85MOn760yfPv0+raFEzVRGm+xi1HNNjf/N3AXZ+iFE+vPn rvvqKXOMUbC1wgYsi1l8lR4H/oeU+53UdXpjaoC2MJ5XnK4R9TOR X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzK85pul5bOm23dv2casaNySwjsHkuck+p3OkaB07fXoTvZt0WRbgn54wqOuU0jRA/BHsG0zJx7s0HxDWl2sp0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:3c1a:: with SMTP id j26mr14010375lja.297.1619461766425; Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:29:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210423195504.d6f74x4jsdrzagcc@muon> <49ca86ec6409217d60e3f2e94e3090ef2b571f80.camel@loup-vaillant.fr> In-Reply-To: From: Michael Sierchio Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 11:28:50 -0700 Message-ID: To: "cfrg@irtf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000050c66705c0e4531d" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [CFRG] Bitcoin delenda est. Was: Escalation: time commitment to fix *production* security bugs for BLS RFC v4? X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 18:29:35 -0000 --00000000000050c66705c0e4531d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:03 AM Kyle Rose wrote: On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 1:29 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker > wrote: > >> As a human being living on a planet threatened by environmental damage >> from CO2 emissions, I am strongly opposed to any IETF work to support an= y >> form of purported 'cryptocurrency' that relies on any form of 'proof of >> work' or 'proof of waste'. >> >> The electricity requirements of cryptocurrencies have been larger than >> that of entire countries. This is an experiment that it is time to stop. >> > > This massively overstates the impact of mining. > A single bitcoin transaction uses over 700 kW-h of energy =E2=80=93 equival= ent to the power consumed by an average U.S. household over 24 days. Do you claim otherwise? =E2=80=93 M --00000000000050c66705c0e4531d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:03 AM Kyle Rose <krose@krose.org> wrote:

On Mon= , Apr 26, 2021 at 1:29 PM Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
=
As a human being living on a = planet threatened=C2=A0by environmental damage from CO2 emissions, I am str= ongly opposed to any IETF work to support=C2=A0any form of purported 'c= ryptocurrency' that relies on any form of 'proof of work' or &#= 39;proof of waste'.=C2=A0

The electricity requirements of cryptocurre= ncies have been larger than that of entire countries. This is an experiment= that it is time to stop.

This massively over= states the impact of mining.
=C2= =A0
A=C2=A0single=C2=A0bitcoin transaction=C2=A0uses ove= r 700 kW-h of=C2=A0energy=C2=A0=E2=80=93 equivalent to the=C2=A0power consumed=C2=A0by an average U.S. household over 24 days.=C2=A0 D= o you claim otherwise?

=E2=80=93 M
--00000000000050c66705c0e4531d--