Consensus that rewards proof of mining efficiency

[Kwow]

First post. Not super savvy when it comes to coding and all that but I’ve been tinkering in my head around the energy usage that many regulators have with proof of work. I know a lot of this is unfounded but it gave me an idea. Theoretically, would it be possible to either amend the bitcoin code or propose a fork whereas miners would be reward based on the efficiency of their mining rig? Sort or hash/watt

[BlackHatCoiner]

There's no need to change anything in the source code. Currently they are rewarded based on the efficiency of their mining rigs. The more efficient a machine is, the more hashes it can calculate at the given cost, therefore, the more money they earn.

[Kwow]

This I understand but not all inputs are equal across the world (electricity cost). Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to reward them based on efficiency as it relates to computational power / energy consumption?

[garlonicon]

Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to reward them based on efficiency as it relates to computational power / energy consumption?

You cannot do that, because you only know produced hashes, you don't know if it was CPU-mined, GPU-mined, FPGA-mined or ASIC-mined, and how efficient that device was. You can only reward miners proportionally to the produced hashes, according to network difficulty and coinbase reward. It is possible to pay miners based on their efficiency in decentralized way, but more things are needed to check if produced blocks are valid.

Sort or hash/watt

No, because "watt" can be only estimated. It should rather be "satoshis per hash". I thought about creating a chain on Layer Zero, where Bitcoin would be Layer One (and LN/sidechains would be Layer Two). Then, that Layer Zero could contain superblock headers, where the merkle root would be created in the same way as in normal blocks, but transactions would be replaced by block headers. Then, block hashes would be concatenated and hashed, forming a merkle tree. Then, that superblock header could store many block headers and could be attached as a commitment to the coinbase transaction on Layer One, just by using unspendable "OP_RETURN <superblockHeader>" TapScript branch and tweaking the miner's key, then the cost would be zero additional bytes on-chain. In this way, Layer Zero would be merge-mined with Layer One.

By checking only 80-byte headers, it is enough to distribute "satoshis per hash". But, to have a working system, checking more things than block headers alone is needed. It could be a good starting point, but that should be restricted by more rules, to make sure that produced blocks are valid enough to give each miner its share.

[PrimeNumber7]

Theoretically, would it be possible to either amend the bitcoin code or propose a fork whereas miners would be reward based on the efficiency of their mining rig? Sort or hash/watt

No. Not possible.

The owner of a miner can know the efficiency of their equipment, but it is not possible for them to prove it to the network, especially in real-time.

As BlackHatCoiner pointed out, the more efficient a miner is, the fewer electricity costs it will have, which will increase the net profits of running a miner.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to reward them based on efficiency as it relates to computational power / energy consumption?

Again, it does. Efficiency is the work:energy ratio. A person who spends less energy than another, but generate the same number of hashes every second, gains a greater reward.

[...]

Sorry, but I lost you on the superblock header part. Can you describe how would this implementation make the system more efficient? Even if you changed some of the rules, as you say. Your phrasing is a little foggy.

[garlonicon]

Can you describe how would this implementation make the system more efficient?

It will have the same efficiency, it could be just more decentralized, if you could just push some 80-byte block header in P2P way and receive some reward for that, according to the network difficulty, your block hash, and the coinbase reward (the basic reward is simple, fees are problematic, because validating that require validating all amounts in all transactions). I also thought about "pay to block hash" address type, but even then that would allow "the burning attack" by broadcasting unspendable block headers (one fake transaction is making the whole block invalid).

[franky1]

This I understand but not all inputs are equal across the world (electricity cost). Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to reward them based on efficiency as it relates to computational power / energy consumption?

if someone is using cheap 4cent electric then at current hashrate they are enjoying a $32k a coin mining cost(hardware cost included).
someone at 12cent electric is getting about $42k a coin.
someone at 38cent electric is getting about $70k a coin

thus those using cheap electric get more reward because if the price was say $38k. then the cheap electric group are getting $6k profit while the less cheap electric group are not breaking even

this incentive makes miners want to find the best electric consumption rates by default.
nothing needs to change

and if they cant mine cheaper then the market. then they simply dont mine. and instead the buy. which then helps push up the market price to help incentivise the mining costs

[BlackHatCoiner]

From Bitcoin network security, i don't see any benefit.

Since they've mentioned the PoW regulation in the first post, I guess the benefit goes either to the environment or to the holders' pockets. (Due to the rise in demand, which happens due to a nation's approval)