📅 Original date posted:2021-05-23
📝 Original message:On 5/23/21, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Good morning James,
>
>> Background
>> ===
>> Reducing the block reward reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the
>> maximum energy price at which mining is profitable, reducing the energy
>> use.
>>
>
> If people want to retain previous levels of security, they can offer to pay
> higher fees, which increases the miner reward and thereby increasing the
> energy use again.
The turn-around time for that takes a population of both users and
miners to cause. Increasing popularity of bitcoin has a far bigger
impact here, and it is already raising fees and energy use at an
established rate.
If it becomes an issue, as bandwidth increases block size could be
raised to lower fees.
> Properly account for the entropy increase (energy usage) of all kinds of
> pollution, and the free market will naturally seek sustainable and renewable
> processes --- because that maximizes profitability in the long run.
There is little economic incentive to fine carbon emissions because
there is no well-established quick path to gain profit from reducing
them. The feedback paths you describe take decades if not hundreds of
years.
But it sounds like you are saying you would rather the energy issue
stay a political one that does not involve bitcoin. Your point is
quite relevant because bitcoin is not the largest consumer of energy;
those who care about reducing energy use would be better put to look
at other concerns.
The reason to reduce _bitcoin's_ energy use, would simply be to aid
its popularity and quell public concern. Without doing this, people
move to an altcoin, because increasing the value of bitcoin via
spreading its use, increases the demand for mining. That human
decision is part of the honesty you describe.
> What is needed is to enforce that pollution be paid for by those who cause
> it --- this can require significant political influence to do (a major world
> government is a major polluter, willing to pay for high fuel costs just to
> ship their soldiers globally, polluting the environments of foreign
> countries), and should be what true environmentalists would work towards,
> not rejecting Bitcoin as an environmental disaster (which is frankly
> laughable).
>
> Remember, the free market only works correctly if all its costs are
> accounted correctly --- otherwise it will treat costs subsidized by the
> community of human beings as a resource to pump.
It sounds like you would prefer a proof-of-work function that directly
proved carbon offsetting? And an on-chain tax for environmental harm?
On 5/23/21, Anton Ragin via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Well, it is done automatically every 4 years :) It is a self-balancing
> system - more people shout about Bitcoin being dirty -> less adoption ->
> lower the price -> less energy consumption. Add on top the fact that in
> 2024 block rewards will fall 50% anyway and someday it will be zero.
Is hashrate rising slower than the block reward is dropping, that you
mention the 4 years halving? Do you see a problem with dropping the
block reward to make faster change to the hashrate curve, that you
mention the existing system's weaker approach?
I personally wasn't aware that Elon had complained; I've been hearing
the complaint from scads of people for many years.
Karl [ARCHIVE] /
npub10h…9xjf9
2023-06-07 22:53:57
in reply to nevent1q…a5jh
Author Public Key
npub10hvdghlzknsxl8n9fhevm3hc6ppgkmnhjl0x7999hylnmcm3jursv9xjf9Published at
2023-06-07 22:53:57Event JSON
{
"id": "5024e45e8af8f95baf6e57a1a103be5b0158c359d9e2a01a15aeb67b7aa23fb6",
"pubkey": "7dd8d45fe2b4e06f9e654df2cdc6f8d0428b6e7797de6f14a5b93f3de3719707",
"created_at": 1686178437,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8d0bb826177b41e659f5c566e77dba9a56fdda22bffca10ac52303253ee51896",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"ee14a3996bdc16dd4155948519cce9f13900f39dbc91df5581804f40695aee53",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-05-23\n📝 Original message:On 5/23/21, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Good morning James,\n\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Background\n\u003e\u003e ===\n\u003e\u003e Reducing the block reward reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the\n\u003e\u003e maximum energy price at which mining is profitable, reducing the energy\n\u003e\u003e use.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e If people want to retain previous levels of security, they can offer to pay\n\u003e higher fees, which increases the miner reward and thereby increasing the\n\u003e energy use again.\n\nThe turn-around time for that takes a population of both users and\nminers to cause. Increasing popularity of bitcoin has a far bigger\nimpact here, and it is already raising fees and energy use at an\nestablished rate.\n\nIf it becomes an issue, as bandwidth increases block size could be\nraised to lower fees.\n\n\u003e Properly account for the entropy increase (energy usage) of all kinds of\n\u003e pollution, and the free market will naturally seek sustainable and renewable\n\u003e processes --- because that maximizes profitability in the long run.\n\nThere is little economic incentive to fine carbon emissions because\nthere is no well-established quick path to gain profit from reducing\nthem. The feedback paths you describe take decades if not hundreds of\nyears.\n\nBut it sounds like you are saying you would rather the energy issue\nstay a political one that does not involve bitcoin. Your point is\nquite relevant because bitcoin is not the largest consumer of energy;\nthose who care about reducing energy use would be better put to look\nat other concerns.\n\nThe reason to reduce _bitcoin's_ energy use, would simply be to aid\nits popularity and quell public concern. Without doing this, people\nmove to an altcoin, because increasing the value of bitcoin via\nspreading its use, increases the demand for mining. That human\ndecision is part of the honesty you describe.\n\n\u003e What is needed is to enforce that pollution be paid for by those who cause\n\u003e it --- this can require significant political influence to do (a major world\n\u003e government is a major polluter, willing to pay for high fuel costs just to\n\u003e ship their soldiers globally, polluting the environments of foreign\n\u003e countries), and should be what true environmentalists would work towards,\n\u003e not rejecting Bitcoin as an environmental disaster (which is frankly\n\u003e laughable).\n\u003e\n\u003e Remember, the free market only works correctly if all its costs are\n\u003e accounted correctly --- otherwise it will treat costs subsidized by the\n\u003e community of human beings as a resource to pump.\n\nIt sounds like you would prefer a proof-of-work function that directly\nproved carbon offsetting? And an on-chain tax for environmental harm?\n\nOn 5/23/21, Anton Ragin via bitcoin-dev\n\u003cbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e Well, it is done automatically every 4 years :) It is a self-balancing\n\u003e system - more people shout about Bitcoin being dirty -\u003e less adoption -\u003e\n\u003e lower the price -\u003e less energy consumption. Add on top the fact that in\n\u003e 2024 block rewards will fall 50% anyway and someday it will be zero.\n\nIs hashrate rising slower than the block reward is dropping, that you\nmention the 4 years halving? Do you see a problem with dropping the\nblock reward to make faster change to the hashrate curve, that you\nmention the existing system's weaker approach?\n\nI personally wasn't aware that Elon had complained; I've been hearing\nthe complaint from scads of people for many years.",
"sig": "f655979bc22cda1ebcc8a0481bb1d937a9765aebb2ca5e650dff22317ad3c0bf05e65106194383f72d5329e5f46e5218d9c6aed83696ad142b041f3c4c2a16a4"
}