1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617D3C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 11:27:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8A683806
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 11:27:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.801
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_60=1.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp1.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=protonmail.com
Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp1.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Ta7idJQZw5xR
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 11:27:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-40141.protonmail.ch (mail-40141.protonmail.ch
[185.70.40.141])
by smtp1.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0455F83455
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 11:27:09 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 11:26:59 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1621769226;
bh=ajSf0Q5qqPX0l+YL1O++zNYqY1LgA8hXKkDwoYG97UU=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=DqcoFDLtoHZCdw15EmhKsSoikbpo2LsWGRkk6Duykl4efTVAu3R9AgJsf5aQd22dx
ApUMQFESx82mYQ4ap5oTuEOOMSFIB+aVqygvK8+nmw0Lo8tg3vjPm7G1wSN+ttGkWH
oepcVlSNl/DhIHswShSy88if4lkEvJDIgxSUPfX8=
To: James Lu <jamtlu@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <KVDgWlVOrIW9ahW8jA8W1eSK-w0OzVEjx585MpJiNL-SuX9x-td_VzNEtFSDNj-bwulh_nLExtNBl4WD6x2Ipjp9bQvT4Jo3NIqoyDxoBBM=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANQHGB1N4E9=cqrkxDiUH5hAHgzURAJv+S7Vkf8xWEMJ=+T_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CANQHGB1N4E9=cqrkxDiUH5hAHgzURAJv+S7Vkf8xWEMJ=+T_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Reducing block reward via soft fork
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 11:27:11 -0000
Good morning James,
> Background
> =3D=3D=3D
> Reducing the block reward reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the m=
aximum 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 e=
nergy use again.
The only difference is that the security is paid for directly by transactor=
s rather than slowly extracted from HODLers.
Thus, I expect that the energy use of Bitcoin will fairly closely match its=
security usage, even with this change.
Really, though:
* The issue is not energy use.
* The issue is the energy *efficiency*.
Everything important requires energy.
What is needed is to get the most amount of work for the least amount of en=
tropy-increase.
Deleterious environmental effects (pollution, temperature rise, and so on) =
are symptoms of entropy-increase in the local universe.
These have long-term negative effects from the simple fact that we are prod=
ucing entropy and dumping it into our surroundings.
If these effects are properly charged to their instigators (e.g. carbon emi=
ssions fines), then the negative environmental effects will become economic=
disincentives, that miners will now naturally avoid in order to increase t=
heir profitability.
This holds no matter how much block rewards are, and how much comes from th=
e block subsidy or from mining fees.
The trope that the "free market" is somehow opposed to "environmentalism" i=
s about as accurate to real life as Hollywood hacking "I can crack AES-256 =
in exactly 30 minutes".
Properly account for the entropy increase (energy usage) of all kinds of po=
llution, and the free market will naturally seek sustainable and renewable =
processes --- because that maximizes profitability in the long run.
Anyone who pushes for environmentalism but refuses to use Bitcoin should be=
treated with suspicion of either hypocrisy or massive ignorance --- Bitcoi=
n is the most honest currency in accounting for its energy usage and consum=
ption, and I suspect most other currencies have far worse efficiencies, tha=
t happen to be hidden because they are not properly accounted for.
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 worl=
d government is a major polluter, willing to pay for high fuel costs just t=
o ship their soldiers globally, polluting the environments of foreign count=
ries), and should be what true environmentalists would work towards, not re=
jecting Bitcoin as an environmental disaster (which is frankly laughable).
Remember, the free market only works correctly if all its costs are account=
ed correctly --- otherwise it will treat costs subsidized by the community =
of human beings as a resource to pump.
> Alternatives
> =3D=3D=3D
> Instead of outright rejecting transactions (and the blocks that contain t=
hem) that attempt to spend increased block rewards, treat them as no-ops.
That is inefficient --- the "no-op" transactions reduce the available block=
space for operational transactions, thus this alternative is strictly infe=
rior to a simple acceleration of block subsidy reduction.
Regards,
ZmnSCPXj
|
