📅 Original date posted:2021-05-23
📝 Original message:>> 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.
>>
>
> Which increases block rewards somewhat (at least to some level that matches
> the overall security of the network) and you still have the same amount of
> energy consumed.
If you mean to implicitly propose that even if halved all the way with
very large blocks, block rewards would just increase to the same
level, meaning that any attempt to decrease them has no effect, I
disagree. I expect that if you raise the block size, eventually
there is so much supply for transactions that there are no fees at all
(nor security). The numbers are all things the devs, miners, and
users can together control.
> How to prove this is not happening?
> The best you can do is to have some number of authorities sign off on
> whether or not they are doing this.
> The problem is that authorities are bribeable.
You could make the proof of work be a proof of environmental kindness
by coding incentives for people to place and verify proof on the
chain, and then rewarding people for acting on it as desired. You
could code the chain to pay people to investigate and prove miners'
business practices, for example. You could define the main chain as
one where everyone consents the proofs are valid. There are a lot of
issues to resolve and it would be a very different chain.
There is not a single solution here. There are innumerable possible
solutions, any one of which could be made to work with enough brains
working on it. To use one, we need to agree on what kinds of
solutions are acceptable.
> Alternately, other entities in the locality can use force to require the
> polluting entity to clean up or suffer significant consequences.
> This at least is better incentive-wise, as they others in the same locality
> are the ones most affected, but the ability to enforce may be difficult due
> to various political constructions; the miners could be in such deep cahoots
> with the local government that the local government would willingly hurt
> other local entities in the vicinity of the polluting entity.
As bitcoin grows, if people ask some locality to enforce behavior,
they may need to be willing to enforce it themselves, too, or they
might outcompete the locality.
Karl [ARCHIVE] /
npub10h…9xjf9
2023-06-07 22:53:58
in reply to nevent1q…9q55
Author Public Key
npub10hvdghlzknsxl8n9fhevm3hc6ppgkmnhjl0x7999hylnmcm3jursv9xjf9Published at
2023-06-07 22:53:58Event JSON
{
"id": "05e3549a21f1d4517c2da0370d520c54e8a3ac68917c04323d09424a6b08c034",
"pubkey": "7dd8d45fe2b4e06f9e654df2cdc6f8d0428b6e7797de6f14a5b93f3de3719707",
"created_at": 1686178438,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"8d0bb826177b41e659f5c566e77dba9a56fdda22bffca10ac52303253ee51896",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"50c5b3ea0af29da494cf67469059dc465aac9b64de6d58b1915c05ff0b6e2016",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"4505072744a9d3e490af9262bfe38e6ee5338a77177b565b6b37730b63a7b861"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2021-05-23\n📝 Original message:\u003e\u003e The turn-around time for that takes a population of both users and\n\u003e\u003e miners to cause. Increasing popularity of bitcoin has a far bigger\n\u003e\u003e impact here, and it is already raising fees and energy use at an\n\u003e\u003e established rate.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e If it becomes an issue, as bandwidth increases block size could be\n\u003e\u003e raised to lower fees.\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Which increases block rewards somewhat (at least to some level that matches\n\u003e the overall security of the network) and you still have the same amount of\n\u003e energy consumed.\n\nIf you mean to implicitly propose that even if halved all the way with\nvery large blocks, block rewards would just increase to the same\nlevel, meaning that any attempt to decrease them has no effect, I\ndisagree. I expect that if you raise the block size, eventually\nthere is so much supply for transactions that there are no fees at all\n(nor security). The numbers are all things the devs, miners, and\nusers can together control.\n\n\u003e How to prove this is not happening?\n\u003e The best you can do is to have some number of authorities sign off on\n\u003e whether or not they are doing this.\n\u003e The problem is that authorities are bribeable.\n\nYou could make the proof of work be a proof of environmental kindness\nby coding incentives for people to place and verify proof on the\nchain, and then rewarding people for acting on it as desired. You\ncould code the chain to pay people to investigate and prove miners'\nbusiness practices, for example. You could define the main chain as\none where everyone consents the proofs are valid. There are a lot of\nissues to resolve and it would be a very different chain.\n\nThere is not a single solution here. There are innumerable possible\nsolutions, any one of which could be made to work with enough brains\nworking on it. To use one, we need to agree on what kinds of\nsolutions are acceptable.\n\n\u003e Alternately, other entities in the locality can use force to require the\n\u003e polluting entity to clean up or suffer significant consequences.\n\u003e This at least is better incentive-wise, as they others in the same locality\n\u003e are the ones most affected, but the ability to enforce may be difficult due\n\u003e to various political constructions; the miners could be in such deep cahoots\n\u003e with the local government that the local government would willingly hurt\n\u003e other local entities in the vicinity of the polluting entity.\n\nAs bitcoin grows, if people ask some locality to enforce behavior,\nthey may need to be willing to enforce it themselves, too, or they\nmight outcompete the locality.",
"sig": "2d182daa423f096e6602ae8eca1a8c9387a2553cfaa6836dc3c219ec467371df247e132fa5536272ffae4d6752886e6e1916fd63f8c6e7d3460e9a1a04d1d50d"
}