Closed msporny closed 2 years ago
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Can we get a statement of why?
It seems like a witch hunt.
edit:
[...] proof-of-work which is wasteful. “Successful” proof-of-work systems waste a staggering amount of electricity world-wide [...]
This question is meant to ask why proof-of-work is wasteful in any sense of the word. The resulting product appears to be extremely useful, and was literally impossible to produce before the invention of proof-of-work.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Can we get a statement of what it means to standardize any DID Method in a specification for decentralized identifiers, and what the benefit of that standardization would be to Internet users trying to communicate with each other?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Can we get a statement of what it means to be branded "out of scope" when the whole point of a decentralized identifier specification is to not control the methods used to achieve the specification's requirements?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Can the formal objectors suggest a method for establishing and controlling a DID that is more resistant than the leading proof-of-work network to censorship by an oppressive or incompetent regime that is abusing PKI?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Do the formal objectors acknowledge in any way that PKI is fruitful ground for innovation, and that current innovation in the space, such as the whitelists installed after the 2013 TurkTrust fiasco, is extremely centralized?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Who should ultimately pay the nodes that host my identity?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago I have heard that there is some standing objection to comparison with other wrongs. What makes picking a wrong to focus on unquestionable, and objecting to the chosing of that focus questionable?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago What's the math of how many days global warming would be delayed if this emergency action were upheld?
edit: This question is meant to focus enquiring minds on the critical difference in question:
In answering this question, please note that did:ion can support 10,000 CRUD operations per Bitcoin transaction, and did:btcr in its experimental version requires one blockchain transaction per CRUD operation, but in a new version that is underway should allow unbounded creation of DIDs and arbitrarily-large batchsets of changes per blockchain transaction.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago People who value massively-adopted proof-of-work implementations believe that there is no better decentralization technique to attempt to resist oppressive regimes. This means that in the technical judgement of these believers, when given a human rights issue opposing the local regime, all other DID solutions are assumed inferior at upholding certain EWP, such as:
What is the evidence that these people are so wrong that their options should be shut out of the network using DIDs?
If there is reasonable doubt that these proof-of-work believers might be right, why should any single EWP criteria rule over the others?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago I have heard that there is some standing objection to thinking optimistically about the future. Why is it only good to think pessimistically about the future? Shouldn't we try to think effectively about the future based on the best available information?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Who decides how much value something has? Who should decide?
jandrieu
commented
3 years ago Per Mozilla's suggestion, should a future DID WG Charter that standardizes DID Methods contain language the specifically places proof-of-work DID Methods as "out of scope"?
No.
This suggestion is anathema to the purpose of DIDs and should be rejected out of hand.
@msporny Since you opened this issue, please state your personal or professional position on the matter.
Are you proposing that this be done?
If so, please explain your reasoning.
If you aren't proposing it, please close it and have someone who can speak with authority to the underlying motivation. I'd like to understand who is pushing this agenda and who is supporting it and why. Perhaps there are valid concerns that could be addressed by better understanding the underlying objection. Or perhaps their concerns are based on a misunderstanding that we can clear up with a civil discussion. However, absent that, I can only conclude that there is no meritorious argument for this proposal.
If you aren't the person who can respond to such a discussion, please withdraw the proposal and find someone who can. Because if you aren't, then there is no reasonable way to advance the conversation to closure.
This issue is a distraction. I'd much rather have spent the time I used today to respond to this on something more productive, like reviewing PRs for the Rubric or advancing the requirements work for the VC API.
Please stop wasting the community's time on unsubstantiated and inappropriate objections like this one.
csuwildcat
commented
3 years ago I was on a recent W3C call on the topic of sustainability where folks were basing their entire position on misinformation and dubious news headlines. They didn't even realize electricity ≠ emissions, had no idea PoW systems primarily tap waste energy from green/renewable sources that would otherwise go unused, and lacked basic economic/infrastructure knowledge about energy systems. When confronted with data-reality, they simply refused to acknowledge it and repeated conclusively debunked claims. I can't tell exactly which it is, but the folks leading this anti-PoW charge are either innocently or willfully uneducated on this topic. The anti-PoW opposition I have heard thus far has lacked academic rigor to a degree that is seriously concerning, and folks who are either too busy or unwilling to invest the time to become educated about a topic should have 0 say over it.
It is my personal opinion that this Issue should be closed with extreme prejudice.
msporny
commented
3 years ago Since it looks like I'm getting a target drawn on my back :) -- I raised this issue to formalize Mozilla's DID Core formal objection into a public discussion and take it to it's conclusion... so that the DID WG can discuss it as a part of W3C Process related to re-chartering.
I'm the messenger, don't shoot! :)
@msporny Since you opened this issue, please state your personal or professional position on the matter.
That would take quite a long time indeed, but I expect the end result is aligned with many of the points you raised. That said, I expect any proof-of-work method standardized at W3C to get the sort of treatment that Mozilla raised (due to misunderstanding how these systems are built and how they work). So, if it's ever proposed, there has to be a fair amount of education w/ the W3C Membership in either direction (wrt. the DID WG recharter -- make it illegal, make it legal, or don't say anything).
The question was not "should DID Methods based on proof-of-work exist", but rather "should they be standardized at W3C".
Are you proposing that this be done?
Nope. :)
If you aren't proposing it, please close it
Nope. :)
We'll close it once the DID WG and W3C community has reached some sort of consensus on what to do here. It's very clear that Mozilla does not want PoW DID Methods to be standardized at W3C -- they are formally objecting, so we're going to have to discuss this. I have notified the DID Core objectors and pointed them at these issues. It is up to them to engage, and if we don't get objections on a concrete proposal on what goes in the next DID WG recharter, then we're good to close the issue. Until then, it should stay open.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago I'm the messenger, don't shoot! :)
I respect this and also respect the request for you to explicitly state your interlocutorial status, lest others misread support for a position that you have not intentionally taken.
mprorock
commented
3 years ago We'll close it once the DID WG and W3C community has reached some sort of consensus on what to do here. It's very clear that Mozilla does not want PoW DID Methods to be standardized at W3C -- they are formally objecting, so we're going to have to discuss this. I have notified the DID Core objectors and pointed them at these issues. It is up to them to engage, and if we don't get objections on a concrete proposal on what goes in the next DID WG recharter, then we're good to close the issue. Until then, it should stay open.
Thank you @msporny. This is well stated. These are complex issues that are not black and white. It would be great if we could foster some good dialog with the FOs, and get their input earlier in the process. Having raised a similar issue on the Implementation guide for identical reasons in order to try and get some consensus around the topic from the group we should likely leverage some of the thought from that section here if folks coming in need context from the community on the topic.
Where that PR wound up is basically that the Rubric should provide the ability to evaluate DID methods based on criteria that a user may wish to understand. There should be clear environmental criteria in the rubric to allow for this type of assessment in the rubric.
I will point out that some of us feel quite strongly about the environment, but also recognize other use cases exist where arguments can be made for the requirement of a proof of work ledger at this time, especially in that, as @jandrieu pointed out DIDs are leveraging existing infrastructure, and depending on details (batching, etc) can have quite minimal direct impacts.
Beyond this, I am not sure the the WG should be standardizing ANY DID methods in particular, but should be focused on interop, the data model, rubric, registry, etc. I know that this can make some folks uncomfortable if they are used to more centralized systems, but the name of the game here is decentralization, and we should embrace that fact to our advantage and continue to build an ecosystem that can interoperate and be successful broadly. A key part of that will be not picking winners as is being discussed in #14
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago @csuwildcat said:
I was on a recent W3C call on the topic of sustainability where folks were basing their entire position on misinformation and dubious news headlines.
I'm still working through the deluge of links dropped by AramZS in the "Environmental Concerns and Sustainability (s12y) of Web Technologies" call, but so far the most ridiculous sounding headline is the Ars Technica article, "Bitcoin power plant is turning a 12,000 year old glacial lake into a hot tub" by Tim De Chant on 7/6/2021, which later had to be walked back to "Bitcoin power plant making part of glacial lake 'feel like a hot tub,' residents say [Updated]". NBC News did a similar article, titled, "Some locals say a bitcoin mining operation is ruining one of the Finger Lakes. Here's how.", which includes a video segment, that helped push the headline into popular consciousness.
If your time and attention have been drawn - like mine - towards understanding and parsing these issues for others, then you'll be looking for more information about the story (and you'll be taking these actions at the cost of not meeting commitments based on a predictable engineering schedule).
The hot tub claim was handled a couple days later in Bitcoin Magazine in an article titled "The Tall Tale of Boiling Seneca Lake" with the tagline "The overdramatization of environmental concerns related to bitcoin mining obfuscate any legitimate conversation on the topic." by LEVEL39.
However, that isn't the best debunking, because the locals actually have some legitimate concerns about temperatures in a trout stream, as explained in: Fish Aren't Biting in Seneca Lake; Will Greenidge's Planned Bitcoin Mining Expansion Make Matters Worse?. That article lists various concerns, but eventually disclaims in a caption that the hot temeratures are measured "immediately below the discharge pipe" in the tributary rather than anywhere in the lake, and quotes the local fisherman admitting that "two salt plants near Watkins Glen, which have [NY regulatory agency] permits to discharge millions of gallons of brine into the lake, may be doing even more damage than [the Bitcoin miners]".
Overall, the best coverage on the topic is by a cryptocurrency news site called Decrypt where journalist Scott Chipolina chose the headline, "Is Seneca Lake Being Warmed By Bitcoin Mining? Not Quite." and the tagline, "Reports claim New York's Seneca Lake is getting warmer, and that Greenidge's Bitcoin mining is to blame. That's not quite true - but it is having an effect." A few quotes:
[...]
It's important to point out that the Keuka Outlet has been classified by New York's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) as a trout stream, meaning algae blooms also harm existing wildlife in the region.
[...]
“Greenidge consistently points out that they're not exceeding their permit limits, but this doesn't help Seneca's aquatic life,” Taylor says, adding that if Governor Cuomo's DEC had “done their job,” this problem “wouldn't exist.”
[...]
Jason Deane, Bitcoin analyst at market firm Quantum Economics, sees the situation as troubling. “It's clear that profit is the primary driver here, not the local community or environment,” Deane tells Decrypt. “That is always concerning in any industry, not just mining."
If you think it's unfair to point at the old Ars Technica title, when there was a new one at the time of posting, then take a look at the URL as it appeared in IRC, when no one had time to follow the link, rather being left with impressions based on the text in the URL.
Speaking of impressions...
@csuwildcat said:
folks who are either too busy or unwilling to invest the time to become educated about a topic should have [zero] say over it.
I'd like to highlight conversation between @msporny and Tantek [sorry Tantek I don't know your github handle to @] in the DiD 1.0 Comments call on 21 September 2021:
\<tantek> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/09/03/climate/bitcoin-carbon-footprint-electricity.html "Bitcoin Uses More Electricity Than Many Countries. How Is That Possible? - The New York Times"
[scribe transcribing Tantek:] NYT posted another article about carbon footprint of bitcoin. Look up # of did methods that depend on bitcoin blockchain.
\<manu> You should come to the group and debate your point, tantek, you will find that again, it's not as clear cut as you state /across DID Methods/ - not everyone uses PoW
\<tantek> manu, as noted in our charter response, we don't actually have the resources to go to the group to debate this point, that's part of the problem. dissent should not require participation in the WG.
I think that pushing back on a request to more fully understand the issues through dialog with the affected working group, based on not having the resources, fits perfectly with Daniel's guidance to not claim that one's opinion should be considered by others to be informed.
Lastly, here is a usefully detailed critique of the NYT's earlier tabloid journalism on Bitcoin, some of which applies to the article Tantek links above, but all of which should set the tone for whether Internet engineers should double check the references and conclusions of journalists when deciding how the physics of one or another valuable human activity will affect the planet: "On Bitcoin, the Gray Lady Embraces Climate Lysenkoism. How the NYT wields junk science in their attacks on Bitcoin".
jyasskin
commented
3 years ago Reading the comments here, it sounds like several people object to the claim that DID methods based on proof-of-work cryptocurrencies aren't sustainable. Or, equivalently, strongly assert that these DID methods are sustainable. I don't see objections to the idea that any standardized DID methods should be sustainable. As @msporny wrote in https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/17#issuecomment-950451975, there will likely have to be a lot of education/consensus-building about the environmental impact of these methods regardless — would it hurt to commit to that in the next charter?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago @jyasskin
I don't see objections to the idea that any standardized DID methods should be sustainable.
Answer these questions: https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/17#issuecomment-950100729
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago there will likely have to be a lot of education/consensus-building about the environmental impact of these methods regardless — would it hurt to commit to that in the next charter?
It would, because Internet engineers cannot draw a bright line regarding when ignorance among the general population has dissipated, and environmental impact of a distributed method will trigger accusations of partisan data estimates and impossible arguments about whether the evaluators lean towards a Nirvana fallacy or its inverse that could be named a Malthusian fallacy. This is not like building a nice datacenter and showing it to everyone (although that is commendable), because although some DID Methods use bounded resources with registered providers, those are the most subject to authoritarian control. The whole point of being distributed is to do better than that, as mentioned here: https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/17#issuecomment-950091615
The only sensible solution is the one we have already chosen, which is to have a Rubric, and allow competing independent evaluations according to reasonable critera, for which there are open issues to include all TAG/EWP.
Since the TAG/EWP are self conflicting, if each EWP is taken as an absolute, different DID Methods will rise to the top. It is not appropriate to try to force hierarchy on the TAG/EWP by hacking this charter.
jyasskin
commented
3 years ago Ah, indeed, I missed the "other ethical web principles can be more valuable than the sustainability principle" argument. Good point, and I'd be happy with a method that explicitly balanced demonstrable benefits to the other principles against environmental impact and concluded that the benefits outweighed the costs.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago [...] I'd be happy with a method that explicitly balanced demonstrable benefits to the other principles against environmental impact and concluded that the benefits outweighed the costs.
Who to demonstrate to? It's hard to tell if you're speaking as an Internet engineer representing a company that made a formal objection, or whether you're speaking about what you'd choose as an end user. I think this should be the choice of the end user, informed through an ecosystem of rubric evaluations. That's the only decentralized answer, and also the only one that will update itself as the market matures.
bobwyman
commented
3 years ago @csuwildcat said:
folks were basing their entire position on misinformation and dubious news headlines. They didn't even realize electricity ≠ emissions, had no idea PoW systems primarily tap waste energy from green/renewable sources that would otherwise go unused, and lacked basic economic/infrastructure knowledge about energy systems.
Whether or not existing PoW systems currently use electricity that would otherwise go unused, it is of some concern that in the absence of use by PoW systems, there would be greater market pressure to find other markets for that now unused electricity. The availability of cheap electricity is an indicator of a market failure that should be addressed.
There are now many areas that regularly produce more renewable electricity than can be used immediately within those areas. However, the introduction of either energy storage or greater transmission would allow that energy to be either buffered for local use when renewable electricity production is reduced or would allow that electricity to be transmitted to remote markets where it would find ready buyers.
The consumption of electricity close to its source by PoW systems tends to discourage the introduction of either storage or transmission. Thus, even though use by PoW systems appears to provide the benefit of a market for otherwise unused renewable electricity, it discourages investment in grid enhancements that would have substantial long-term benefits for both society as a whole and for those who generate the renewable electricity.
The operators of PoW systems seek to locate their facilities in areas with relatively low electricity costs. However, any such area is, in fact, evidence of a market failure, probably due to the absence of either storage or transmission. Thus, the availability of cheap electricity should not be considered an opportunity to increase local demand but rather as a opportunity to develop systems that will ensure that the full value of that electricity can be enjoyed. For example, in Upstate New York State, we enjoy a great deal of "cheap" hydro and wind power. On the other hand, electricity is very expensive in New York City and other downstate regions. Rather than encouraging the consumption of cheap electricity in the Upstate areas, it would be vastly more useful to enhance transmission capacity to transport "unused" electricity to New York City where it would find a much higher price. The consumption of cheap, upstate electricity by PoW systems will tend to frustrate plans to transmit power to the downstate consumers who need it badly and leaves those downstate consumers more dependent on fossil fueled generation than they would be if they had access to the upstate power.
jyasskin
commented
3 years ago I (speaking as someone who influences but doesn't control Google's votes on these things) think @bobwyman's comment is the sort of argument that the charter should encourage to happen during the consensus process of developing RECs for some of the PoW-based DID methods. I don't think this chartering discussion is the right place to drive that argument to a conclusion, but it's an important argument to work through eventually.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago @bobwyman
The availability of cheap electricity is an indicator of a market failure that should be addressed.
@jyasskin
[...] sort of argument that the charter should encourage to happen [...]
You are both offering to discuss the global geographical disconnect between exploitable renewable energy sources and where humans whose civilizations are based on energy innovation have chosen to populate this planet. I submit that this is out of scope.
Would the participants interested in using their time and energy to improve innovation in planetary energy distribution via discussion in this Internet standards body please either meditate a bit and indicate your concurrance on my suggestion of appropriate scope, or respond to the following:
why you think this is not a witch hunt as suggested in my earlier comment;
whether you agree that Bitcoin is going to do its thing as suggested in another earlier comment whether or not did:ion and did:btcr, or even possibly (but improbably) the entire DID specification are burned at the stake; and
(extra credit, just for fun) why you think planetary energy distribution innovation seems underfunded and ripe for improvement through gatekeeping DID Methods to keep them off the Internet.
bobwyman
commented
3 years ago @jyasskin wrote:
I don't think this chartering discussion is the right place to drive that argument to a conclusion
I agree that this discussion is not the right place to resolve this issue. My only intent is to object to @csuwildcat 's suggestion that the "sustainable energy" objection is founded on "misinformation and dubious news headlines."
I believe that there are reasonable grounds for someone to be concerned with the use of PoW systems. Although the details of energy market dynamics are not within the scope of this discussion, the objection should be considered and would be most productively dealt with by acknowledging that it is based on what the objectors consider to be a rational foundation.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago I believe that there are reasonable grounds for someone to be concerned with the use of PoW systems.
objection should be considered and would be most productively dealt with by acknowledging that it is based on what the objectors consider to be a rational foundation.
Ahh yes, Daniel (in his comment) and I (in responding affirmatively to his comment with some rephrasing) have wrongthink, and we are failing to "most productively [deal] with by acknowledging" something that maybe isn't a rational foundation, and you agree that this is the wrong forum but you're adding fresh demands here anyway that "the objection should be considered".
A standards body - if it will survive - must successfully ignore feedback that does not advance technical understanding based on evidence that can be evaluated.
edits: decorum check
jandrieu
commented
3 years ago @bobwyman I think part of the reason that many of us feel the "sustainable energy" objection is unfounded is because there is no credible argument that PoW systems are any less sustainable that the existing monetary infrastructure.
Whether or not it is sustainable is a point of debate.
You may think the objection is based on solid science.
I don't.
Many of us don't.
It is not settled science by any measure. It simply has the illusion of objectivity to some people because it is easy to use the global hashrate to estimate/justify a bunch of hyperbolic assertions.
Because it is unsettled science, it is inappropriate for a decentralized system to take a centralized stance on it. The very notion undermines the fundamental point of DIDs.
Even worse, the term "sustainable" itself has moved from a vague idea with reasonable interpretations to a vague idea weaponized into political warfare. Just as "pro-life" has nothing to do with favoring life--it has become a purely political rallying cry--"sustainable" is a bludgeon that many otherwise well-meaning people use to attack systems of all kind, not just PoW.
For example, I find the continued manipulation of and dependency on fiat-based national currencies to be unsustainable. Go ahead, US Treasury, just print us more currency to finance our ongoing exploitation of natural resources and vulnerable populations. That is not only unsustainable, it is immoral and unethical. It is not only unsustainable in the sense of its own continuity, it literally finances the unsustainable exploitation of the world.
So, we disagree on whether or not "sustainability" attacks on PoW networks are meritorious. Those kinds of differences are to be expected and I respect that you apparently hold a different opinion, even as I reject the foundations of your argument.
That's why this constraint on the charter makes no sense.
The W3C is here to establish standards for interoperability--there are plenty of places where DIDs could do better on that front. However, "sustainability" has nothing to do with interoperability. It has become a political weapon used, in this case and in others, without rigorous definition nor science.
TallTed
commented
3 years ago [@rxgrant] This is the language of the ignorant majority flexing its will
Some of those with whom you disagree have put forth a reasoned basis for (part of) their position, and you have responded with ad hominem, combined with pure insult.
This is a violation of W3C CEPC.
Please revisit and rephrase.
msporny
commented
3 years ago I would like to understand from @jandrieu @rxgrant and @csuwildcat if https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/17#issuecomment-953088829 is a valid, reasoned position. I think the biggest problem we have with this debate (which has been going on for a very, very long time with no end in sight) is that both sides of the debate seem to be dismissing legitimate concerns. As far as I can see it, this is not a cut and dry debate, there are a fantastically large number of variables, and not acknowledging that there are legitimate arguments on both side of the debate prevents us from getting anywhere.
Are there legitimate arguments against proof of work? Yes.
Are there legitimate arguments in favor of proof of work? Yes.
Is it solely the job of the DID WG to prosecute this debate? No.
... and so on.
Continuing to insist, or seeming like you're insisting, that the other side of the debate is without merit is not a good strategy.
csuwildcat
commented
3 years ago @msporny "both sides of the debate seem to be dismissing legitimate concerns" - that's just it, this isn't some 'both sides have legitimate arguments' situation. As with the objectors and other folks on related threads/calls, @bobwyman's comments are yet another example of the lack of understanding of PoW, its incentives, emissions profiles, power grid dynamics, green/renewable source initialization costs/shortfalls, and energy generation systems in general.
Could I spend hours penning a technical dissertation in GitHub comments covering all the topics I listed above? Sure. Am I willing to engage in an Oxford-style debate with anyone on this thread or the W3C? You bet, say the word. Will either of those do one lick of good to dislodge the strongly held superficial positions folks are endlessly repeating about these complex issues? No, probably not. If people can't take the time to read Nic Carter's fantastic posts (https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/03/05/the-frustrating-maddening-all-consuming-bitcoin-energy-debate/, https://etfdb.com/crypto-channel/the-blockchain-interviews-with-guest-nic-carter/), watch an information-dense video like This Machine Greens (parts are overly dramatic, but the data presented is accurate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-7dMVcVWgc), or better yet, read an exhaustive paper that covers most of these topics, why should we dedicate endless amounts of our collective time to educate folks who have had every opportunity over the last few years to understand why the statements they are making are inaccurate. Why don't these folks go digest these resources, then come back with whatever issues they feel remain after doing so?
bobwyman
commented
3 years ago @csuwildcat wrote:
@bobwyman's comments are yet another example of the lack of understanding of PoW, its incentives, emissions profiles, power grid dynamics, green/renewable source initialization costs/shortfalls, and energy generation systems in general.
I would greatly appreciate it if, in addition to pointing out that I am in error, someone could state precisely what is the error in what I wrote. As hard as it might seem to accept this, I would be very grateful to discover, and to have the opportunity to correct, any erroneous views that I may have about energy systems. You see, given that I've spent much of the last five years negotiating electric/gas tariff rates and climate change mitigation measures in numerous proceedings before the New York Public Service Commission, it is very important to me that I have an accurate understanding of these systems. Having spent literally thousands of hours in meetings discussing the kind of issue on which I commented, and having acquired somewhat of a reputation for understanding the dynamics of energy markets, it could be very embarrassing for me if I were to say something false in a formal proceeding or in written testimony.
I thank you in advance for schooling me on my errors,
bob wyman
On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 9:53 PM Daniel Buchner @.***> wrote:
@msporny https://github.com/msporny "both sides of the debate seem to be dismissing legitimate concerns" - that's just it, this isn't some 'both sides have legitimate arguments' situation. As with the objectors and other folks on related threads/calls, @bobwyman https://github.com/bobwyman's comments are yet another example of the lack of understanding of PoW, its incentives, emissions profiles, power grid dynamics, green/renewable source initialization costs/shortfalls, and energy generation systems in general.
Could I spend hours penning a technical dissertation in GitHub comments covering all the topics I listed above? Sure. Am I willing to engage in an Oxford-style debate with anyone on this thread or the W3C? You bet, say the word. Will either of those do one lick of good to dislodge the strongly held superficial positions folks are endlessly repeating about these complex issues? No, probably not. If people can't take the time to read Nic Carter's fantastic posts ( https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/03/05/the-frustrating-maddening-all-consuming-bitcoin-energy-debate/,
https://etfdb.com/crypto-channel/the-blockchain-interviews-with-guest-nic-carter/), watch an information-dense video like This Machine Greens (parts are overly dramatic, but the data presented is accurate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-7dMVcVWgc), or better yet, read an exhaustive paper https://nydig.com/bitcoin-net-zero that covers most of these topics, why should we dedicate endless amounts of our collective time to educate folks who have had every opportunity over the last few years to understand why the statements they are making are inaccurate. Why don't these folks go digest these resources, then come back with whatever issues they feel remain after doing so?
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/17#issuecomment-953436654, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AF3QS2UA2Q5KRT4HGOEKS5LUJCULDANCNFSM5GPIG6RA . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.
csuwildcat
commented
3 years ago @bobwyman instead of me redundantly writing out all the data and applicable facts from all the resources I quoted in the next 100 GH Issue comments it would require to exchange them with you, as well as the calculations I've personally done over the last 5 years, why don't you go digest the cited resources, examine the included data, consider the points they make, then come back here to address any remaining issues you have.
csuwildcat
commented
3 years ago @bobwyman I don't want to come across as dismissive, I just think you can rapidly find answers via those materials. If you would like to have a deeper, more direct call/exchange, I'm certainly up for it, just let me know.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago @TallTed @bobwyman
Please revisit and rephrase.
I think you're right. I'll go back and edit the comment if appropriate.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago @msporny
I would like to understand from @jandrieu @rxgrant and @csuwildcat if #17 (comment) is a valid, reasoned position.
You're telling me it's my job to assess whether "the availability of cheap electricity [anywhere in the world] is an indicator of a market failure that should be addressed"?
There are three questions waiting for you in my response, Manu. It was written seven hours before your request. I would like to understand from you whether https://github.com/w3c/did-wg-charter/issues/17#issuecomment-953153960 is a valid, reasoned position.
Are there legitimate arguments against proof of work? Yes.
State your position more clearly and with less presumed authority by being more specific.
They are the very arguments against all human activity that isn't perceived as for the complaintant's enjoyment [note_1]. Is that a legitimate position? Not if you want to live in a free world.
[note_1:] ...because all modern human activity takes energy and because according to the context set by @bobwyman, consuming stranded energy has some economic effect on research and development of energy transmission.
msporny
commented
3 years ago @rxgrant wrote:
You're telling me it's my job to assess whether "the availability of cheap electricity [anywhere in the world] is an indicator of a market failure that should be addressed"?
Nope. That's a strawman. :)
I would like to understand from you whether #17 (comment) is a valid, reasoned position.
Yes, I find the argument compelling for two reasons: 1) it's put forth by someone that is actually participating in energy markets and legislation around them, and 2) I've spoke with a few acquaintances that are program managers for building multi-tens to hundreds of megawatt solar and energy farms with coupled battery storage systems (and have been in that industry for over 20 years) and who also negotiate large scale power purchase agreements for states who are dubious of some of the "PoW systems help balance green energy production" arguments -- their counter-arguments are "build better energy storage and transmission systems, which we're doing" not "use PoW to balance these things out".
I will also note that both of those are anecdotal evidence, but from real experts in the space who have far more experience with this stuff than @rxgrant, @csuwildcat, and @jandrieu.
Now, is that a reason not to work on PoW systems? No -- they provide other advantages, such as anti-censorship in a way that no other system does... and that's the point here -- once you sort through all the chaff and ridiculously bad arguments, both sides have legitimate arguments. However, what's being conveyed here is that one side is the "ignorant majority flexing its will" while the other is making valid, reasoned arguments... and this cuts in both directions.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Click the link @msporny. I pointed you at my comment.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago However, what's being conveyed here is that one side is the "ignorant majority flexing its will" while the other is making valid, reasoned arguments... and this cuts in both directions.
No, that was retracted.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Nope. That's a strawman. :)
It is absolutely not a strawman. It is a fair read of the core argument of @bobwyman 's comment. If you think the comment is about something else, then use your own words to summarize it so that we can continue a productive discussion of the substantiative issues that you think are a valid argument.
TallTed
commented
3 years ago [@rxgrant] No, that was retracted.
Those words in your comment were retracted. (Thank you.) Regrettably, that does not render them unwritten nor unread.
The message conveyed by message tone, not only from you, remains roughly the same -- that is, largely scoffing at the arguments from the other side and acting as if they're entirely baseless and raised here by fools who have bought into some form of magic beans.
To my eyes, this has appeared to be the pattern of holders of one viewpoint of this field of comparison (which I maintain is properly addressed by [probably several] criteria in the rubric) more than the other viewpoints (yes, there are more than 2).
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago @TallTed
The message conveyed by message tone, not only from you, remains roughly the same -- that is, largely scoffing at the arguments from the other side and acting as if they're entirely baseless and raised here by fools who have bought into some form of magic beans.
Tone is easy to read wrong in the writen word. If you ask me how I feel, which is a gracious interpretation of your comment about how you're reading a group of people's responses, then I feel increasingly embattled and set in my demands for a higher standard of conversation.
Each message I write points to specific failures of the conversation, and specific ways to improve the level of conversation. Even the one I partially retracted.
I absolutely demand substantial specific accusations based on the available data. I will not tolerate - at all - vague accusations and repeated assertions that I must accept the validity of unusual prejudice and presumtive guilt. I have called that a witch hunt, in the first critical question that I posted to this thread, and asked for others to tell me why it isn't, and no one has.
A witch hunt is an intimidating and hostile environment to be under. I hereby invoke W3C CEPC myself.
jyasskin
commented
3 years ago Here are a couple questions where I could use more-precise pointers to answers than "read the above citations". I think a specification or Note is a better place to iterate on those pointers than a chartering discussion.
And a side note: witch hunts usually, although not always, targeted women, and often resulted in their murders. That makes it unwise for members of more-privileged groups to use that analogy.
bobwyman
commented
3 years ago @rxgrant Your claim of a "witch-hunt" was apparently in response to Tantek Çelik's concern re: "proof-of-work which is wasteful." You responded by asking: "why proof-of-work is wasteful in any sense of the word. The resulting product appears to be extremely useful,..."
By this you seem to be implying that the end result of a proof-of-work process is "worth" the resources consumed. In other words, the ends justify the means. However, putting aside the question of the value of the end result, others would suggest that rather than simply comparing the cost of the means to the value of the ends, we should compare the costs of alternative means to the same ends. When doing so, we can observe that some means have higher costs than others. GIven this, some people will suggest that there is "waste" whenever a less efficient means is chosen in place of a more efficient means. In such cases, there need be no implication that the value of the end product does not justify the cost of its production. There is only an implication that more efficient, less-wasteful means could be used.
There are a variety of ways to implement ledger systems and their resource requirements vary. For instance, those concerned with systems that rely on proof-of-work will often observe that alternatives to proof-of-work, for example proof-of-stake or Intel's proof-of-elapsed-time, would be less "wasteful" or "more efficient."
I hope you can accept the point of this message: Objections to "proof-of-work" are not necessarily evidence of a witch-hunt. They may simply be a statement of a preference for one or more alternatives to proof-of-work. Some will object vigorously to the alternatives, others will support them vigorously. But, such differences of position don't necessarily imply that one side or the other is either irrational, arguing in bad faith, or pursuing a witch-hunt.
Note: I have ancestors, and relatives of ancestors, who were attacked as "witches" (Yes, in Salem.) and would prefer if the term "witch-hunt" were not used quite so casually.
bob wyman
csuwildcat
commented
3 years ago In response to @jyasskin's list:
"In the TPAC sustainability discussion, @csuwildcat said that "Bitcoin is 3x cleaner than the average grid", but the paper he cites, Nic Carter's Bitcoin Net Zero says that in China, the average carbon intensity is only 12% less than the China-wide average grid carbon intensity."
^ Not sure if folks are aware (doesn't seem like it), but all mining has moved out of China, which happened after these sections of the paper were written. The US, where the vast majority of that mining capacity shifted, has an almost 2x greater green/renewable profile than China. Furthermore, a ton of the mining is now done via flare capture on-site at natural gas stacks, which is actually a carbon negative form of mining, as it reduces the emissions from flared gasses by the following percentages:
My 3x comment is based on the difference in average global grid makeup vs Bitcoin's current energy usage profile, which has the greenest energy consuming industry profile and continues to get closer to carbon neutral/negative every year.
"This roughly agrees with folks who oppose Bitcoin because fixed- and decreasing-supply monetary systems suppress economic activity. It certainly seems like periods of decreasing economic activity—recessions and depressions—cause more harm to average and vulnerable people than periods of expansion, but it's plausible that Joe could produce evidence of the opposite."
^ This is a oft repeated falsehood that does not prove out when you examine a broad cross-section of inflationary and deflationary monetary systems and events over time. Instead of providing causal, empirical evidence, 'sources' usually rely on very weak correlation present in a few cherry picked examples. There are great resources to understand the economics behind this, and I encourage you to dig deeper (here's a brief article to get folks started: https://mises.org/library/deflating-deflation-myth).
"Yet the Bitcoin Net Zero paper points out that countries can take steps to prevent Bitcoin trading. If the use of the monetary system requires the "oppressive" regime to consent, what's the point of the energy use?"
^ You seem to be conflating the notion that nations can try to prevent Bitcoin trading and use, with the effective ability to actually do so, which has been a resounding failure - case and point: the authoritarian regime in Turkey attempted to ban Bitcoin earlier this year, and what happened in response? --> Bitcoin usage has actually increased in the country, rising to the 4th highest level of usage across nations. Erdoğan is losing, and Bitcoin is winning - let monetary freedom ring!
"I can't find that rebuttal. Bitcoin Net Zero, in particular, barely mentions "transmission" and says that battery storage could make PoW mining cleaner, without appearing to consider that it also eliminates the wasted energy whose use makes bitcoin cleaner today."
^ Happy to talk through it, but the economics of transporting energy that can't feasibly be used when it reaches the source off-peak, can't be justified because the infra would be fraught with risks (e.g. building up infra to a geothermal volcano plant), or is captured at a source that isn't even an electricity producing asset (e.g. flaring natural gas well) are all out there for you to explore and understand if you take the time. Happy to hop on a call and talk through this in greater detail.
^^^ This list of assertions/claims is exactly what folks in the industry who have put in years to understand these issues at great depth are so frustrated by. I cannot tell you how many times I read assertions/rebuttals based on superficial/faulty materials and commentary, like the NYT article on electricity (the same one used as the primary source on the last W3C Sustainability call). To conclude with a proximate example, it appears folks here didn't even realize mining is no longer happening in China, yet seemed perfectly content to base their argument on that lack of awareness - perhaps folks should questions what else they are not aware of or taking sufficient time to properly understand?
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago And a side note: witch hunts usually, although not always, targeted women, and often resulted in their murders.
Thanks, I'll use less idiomatic phrasing.
rxgrant
commented
3 years ago Note: I have ancestors, and relatives of ancestors, who were attacked as "witches" (Yes, in Salem.) and would prefer if the term "witch-hunt" were not used quite so casually.
Thanks too, Bob. I'm learning from this and happy to move on from the idiom.
jyasskin
commented
3 years ago @csuwildcat My point is that when you dismissively say "why don't you go digest the cited resources", the cited resources need to actually support your assertions. They didn't in this case. I was quite aware that mining has moved out of China after they banned it in May-June (and if I hadn't known, page 31 would have told me when it pointed out that states need to consent to this kind of thing), but that doesn't matter in disproving your claim that miners' attraction to cheap energy will result in them using more renewables than the average grid.
OR13
commented
3 years ago Mozilla stated:
We must instead firmly oppose such proof-of-work technologies including to the best of our ability blocking them from being incorporated or enabled (even optionally) by any specifications we develop.
@msporny asked:
Per Mozilla's suggestion, should a future DID WG Charter that standardizes DID Methods contain language the specifically places proof-of-work DID Methods as "out of scope"?
I don't think standardization should be used to manipulate markets, instead, it should be used to reflect (accurately) market behavior and drive attention to problems associated with current market behavior (such as vendor lock, concentrated markets, environmental issues, privacy issues, racial or gender related issues, etc...).
Specifically, Bitcoin and other proof of work technologies exist in markets today.
I do not think W3C should take a position such as "proof of work related technologies should not be standardized".
I do think W3C should comment on the costs and benefits associated with proof of work related technologies, and their alternatives (nation state backed currencies and centralized digital payment solution providers that rely on those support currencies).
Concretely, there should be language that addresses privacy, censorship and environmental concerns associated with "Web" or "Blockchain", or "Large Language Models"... but the W3C should not attempt to prevent these technologies from gaining adoption in the market by preventing them or related technologies such as payment identifiers from being standardized.
I view these issues as belonging to various layers, each of which deserves respectful debate.
Layer 0 - Mathematics, the realm of possible software. Layer 1 - Standards for Mathematics, names for specific function and their behavior that enable effective communication at higher layers. Layer 2 - Standards for Systems, names for things that rely on standard mathematics. Layer 3 - Standards for Systems with values, names for things related to environmental, social, ethical considerations associated with systems seen in the market.
For an example from a different domain:
Layer 0 - Tensors Layer 1 - Neural Nets Layer 2 - GPT-3 based Products Layer 3 - Stochastic Parrots paper...
An example from our domain:
Layer 0 - One way functions (cryptographic hashes specifically) Layer 1 - Proof of Work Layer 2 - Bitcoin based DIDs Layer 3 - how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actually-consume
W3C has a role to play in each of these layers, but I will note that mostly it seems to focus on the top layers, leaving math and cryptographic primitives to IETF...
The contentiousness appears to be when a layer 1 / 2 technology has "built in values"....
This contentiousness should be resolved by separating the layers, and keeping criticism focussed to one layer at a time.
Let me focus the rest of my comment on "layer 3" as it relates to "crypto currencies", some of which rely on "proof of work".
I'm fine adding a lot of rubric data about "proof of work" and "crypto currencies" and related DIDs, but I'm opposed to preventing those DIDs from "being standardized anywhere" including at the W3C... given the recent news from the SEC:
After dozens of applications from different providers, the SEC finally approved the listing of a bitcoin futures ETF earlier this month. ProShares’ fund started trading under the ticker symbol BITO on the New York Stock Exchange on Oct. 19. It has contributed to bitcoin’s price surge, leading to the cryptocurrency reaching a new all-time high of over $66,000.
sec-will-not-approve-leveraged-bitcoin-etf-report
This was also commented on publicly here:
tantek: since we have raised issues regarding specific cryptocurrencies, we'd like to hear about ownership stakes in any of the cryptocurrencies in the did methods … just a request
I'm unsure of the legal implications of using standardization process to manipulate financial markets... either directly, or indirectly through exclusion, or requirements associated with carbon credits, etc:
If it holds that some W3C members may benefit from standardization of crypto currency related technologies, then it holds that such benefits may be obstructed by standardization as well.
Should a payment method identifier for a currency associated with an "environmentally unsustainable" (nation state or crypto currency) be accepted for standardization? In my opinion yes, but with concerns related to either the nation state or the crypto currency duly noted.
I am in favor of addressing environmental concerns with W3C specifications consistently, we should be honest about the benefits and costs associated with all technologies and also about the potential market benefit or market disruption associated with prevalence of or lack of alternatives.
For example, payment methods not associated with crypto currencies and the companies supporting them have a financial incentive to see alternatives based on crypto currencies not standardized.
I am not suggesting that this has happened in the case of payment method identifiers (there are no standard payment method identifiers), I am warning that it can happen, and that while it might be "environmentally sustainable", such solutions might have other issues wrt digital exclusion, concentrated markets or financial censorship.
To tackle the issue title directly:
Do not standardize DID Methods that are not environmentally sustainable
This is unacceptable without defining "environmentally sustainable" and the cost effectiveness of alternatives and other ethical and social issues associated with them, in exactly the same way as it would be for payment method identifiers.
Per: https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-method-id/#registry
At this time there are no standardized payment method identifiers.
We will encounter these exact same issues when we attempt to standardize payment method identifiers that are environmentally, socially or ethically unsustainable (ones that have privacy implications, support rent seeking from a limited number of legal entities, or have censorship or human rights issues)... and we need to consider factors other than simply environmental sustainability, for both payments and did methods.... it is not acceptable to focus on just environmental issues, we need to compare across more than 1 dimension, especially for issues related to economic productivity or digital human rights.
In conclusion:
W3C SHOULD retain the ability to standardize "proof of work" based did or payment methods.
W3C SHOULD spend more time evaluating the ESE considerations associated with web standards, including issues related to concentrated markets, digital exclusion, privacy and sustainability issues related to devices, etc...
The DID WG should not focus on standardizing specific did methods that might be "really decentralized" or "proof of work" based in the next WG charter.
Instead the DID WG should focus on stronger interoperability tests, and did resolution and dereferencing for all methods, regardless of the underlying verifiable data registry, and leave the did method specifications and the did rubric to evaluating specific did methods and their associated environmental, social and ethical considerations.
bobwyman
commented
3 years ago @csuwildcat your suggestion that "perhaps folks should questions[sic] what else they are not aware of or taking sufficient time to properly understand?" is an ad hominem attack that does not improve this discussion.
In fact, I have taken a great deal of time to understand energy systems and the value of both storage and transmission. I have also taken the time to read through your list of resources. I find no reason to dispute Nic Carter's statement that most Bitcoin mining is done "on the grid." He also pointed out that while some mining is done using leaked methane at gas production sites, such systems provide an insignificant portion of total mining capacity. Carter also points out that the energy intensity of mining will be reduced once the maximum number of Bitcoins has been minted. So, I'm left wondering: Given that fractional coins can be traded, and given that the maximum number of Bitcoins is a largely arbitrary number, why don't we do what has been advocated for oil/gas/coal and simply "Leave some coins in the ground!" by ending the mining of new coins now. (But, that is a debate for another time and forum. Not here.) In any case, neither Carter, nor any of those in other pieces, provided any substantive argument in support of proof-of-work as superior to other methods such as proof-of-stake. They also did not address the issue I raised concerning the exploitation of a market failure by moving mining operations into areas where generation capacity is currently stranded.
But, since we're trading reading assignments, I suggest that you read this recent AP story concerning New York's Greenridge Generation facility and mining facility. Greenridge was a mothballed coal plant that was recently re-powered as a 106MW gas-fired plant. However, 44MW (42%) of its capacity is consumed on-site to power 15,300 mining computers. (That's enough power for 35,000 homes.) The article mentions coal-fired plants in Pennsylvania and Montana which are now dedicated to powering mining operations as well as plans to build fossil-fueled mining facilities elsewhere in New York and in other states. Whether or not some mining is done with "clean" power, it is clear that some is also done with very dirty power.
These plants provide examples not only of mining being done in such a way that negative externalities are being imposed on others (i.e. pollution whose cost is not born by those who generate it), they are also examples of stranded generation capacity that could be exploited for other purposes, via storage or transmission, if mining did not require proof-of-work.
If you have other resources that actually address the issues I raised, I would be pleased to consider reviewing them.
bob wyman
This issue has been raised for discussion by the DID WG based on feedback in Mozilla's Formal Objection to DID Core 1.0 (this is neither my or my organization's position -- I'm just the messenger):
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2021Sep/0000.html
Mozilla stated:
Per Mozilla's suggestion, should a future DID WG Charter that standardizes DID Methods contain language the specifically places proof-of-work DID Methods as "out of scope"?