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
137
138
139
140
|
Return-Path: <gmkarl@gmail.com>
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59689C0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 19:44:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32F48402C4
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 19:44:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: smtp4.osuosl.org (amavisd-new);
dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp4.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id xJPmGM_vX3JS
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 19:44:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 190B740337
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 19:44:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id v8so32516000lft.8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 12:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=7ek2WkluB4p33kYEO9zdIm9Ua3TG6sMo71KPVNJgHFQ=;
b=lxiP/IMr2egdqYuZkCqgH+vDP603w9SO7WzT2neSYRj2ln3cSz1rVbPAJhw2LLT/PC
Q3ZcXRDtbQ98Lbxty14QqNSKzgEZvIRtDphJzz4UIzxVL0n/OTaBwRfkcouTK//8WMOo
iiR1fzSomgl3xxCcqNcTWWuphAS+u7icOIDa6nRZj3bclB4u/CK5zLK2hOFcvveSFrwc
zJ3fa1lzHJk2h/I9eXe07VdE1bPqHGihwO3wZREDVpZqqoy1+Q9B+l1opJtI8M5oyjyH
Io5rcKzPdOvGFntWKRGZqXmc71xfDGMEvu2AGJlYRllbIymMF/DKt6Hma+5sH4l4IELQ
RENw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=7ek2WkluB4p33kYEO9zdIm9Ua3TG6sMo71KPVNJgHFQ=;
b=SnrxLPybJorn6eWhdObZ0a96khifa+zXJWvaRJsCeWDZXSbwDCuNTrXHuIByxitDbm
JfMazjdyaqwzyiHaqd9kYGNZ9Jg/OFf/SpELIqlV/UwpMNuc5A1uvjEFTR+qdmI1a4RJ
y0RHfqtNRavJYpGwFRl2HNWrMgxHXkn+TZ47ed1FHt4yZ+kkj5aSUKAF3/ERhqE+uYQM
lo2ADlNa/4NRoi1P98dYJF7ISoPwpJ1fGHVNxMf2LdCvIaty2ubRqe+Iji/DJidhIU20
DFnjhlmHsyMgno0epNFcNc8q9gMTnvJBJIJtWsDatBfMXjYwkl2WBxtSmcd6eu+ZGsXY
s3Lw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532ZU/9ML+4cZ4XsN09n174m534Oqsuv0AhIEBcCftsJhbmMDRH2
R+3IGD6wzewT2HoliKMbZRPWC67GjJfFaXP5E/U=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxhjRRQMm2DavVbej02UsdqxhDGR7L/BTooyYCcwDaa9khDIEYX4Rf4/rImks+8xXKeeyq+Z7xmYywBB853dkU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3592:: with SMTP id
m18mr9061550lfr.454.1621799059064;
Sun, 23 May 2021 12:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a05:651c:2109:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 23 May 2021 12:44:18
-0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <G3RgofdarOhSiEJjyDNaN2Dv27WCpb_0CSOpya6acUnPbpPQ-oygklpP_e0rLdxglK5FCo5dq7Qkv6GinA3qCXiOM6GzEcNvcxxM7kbwFhY=@protonmail.com>
References: <CANQHGB1N4E9=cqrkxDiUH5hAHgzURAJv+S7Vkf8xWEMJ=+T_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
<KVDgWlVOrIW9ahW8jA8W1eSK-w0OzVEjx585MpJiNL-SuX9x-td_VzNEtFSDNj-bwulh_nLExtNBl4WD6x2Ipjp9bQvT4Jo3NIqoyDxoBBM=@protonmail.com>
<CALL-=e7hHYm96KJEFEiTgEaSjK0VTcNcGypLVekmaxYNN+egEA@mail.gmail.com>
<G3RgofdarOhSiEJjyDNaN2Dv27WCpb_0CSOpya6acUnPbpPQ-oygklpP_e0rLdxglK5FCo5dq7Qkv6GinA3qCXiOM6GzEcNvcxxM7kbwFhY=@protonmail.com>
From: Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 15:44:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CALL-=e6deZdsA+LLWBXJwYDf9x2x4sRxC1s=8fb2wH1paXpMBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 23 May 2021 19:52:32 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
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 19:44:22 -0000
>> 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.
|
