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
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
|
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 2F8DCC0001
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 12:08:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C5A5403CA
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 12:08:38 +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 uamkzHbPKko8
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 12:08:36 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
Received: from mail-lf1-x129.google.com (mail-lf1-x129.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::129])
by smtp4.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 849EC4031D
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 12:08:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id w33so28578659lfu.7
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 23 May 2021 05:08:36 -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=mj60xM+SE6Ds/iN1oTXybvTTQB5J9sXarzGGb2RzGpo=;
b=sxAwnp2a6S+m1Tut5TSxXC+HfLoK6x8XuWicLYDp10nA/+uD93N96umSXYP2ilqBX6
8B3/ekmOe6jXBYh821IdC212sqkgUl1YSOOz5dOvF4m4atMnqW+T9VGf7HfCqXj/+it5
E9KScECoGLraENEWiGnAnFSiC3ZQuVbrkO9Z5wv2OGJohwvK6oChmBYKVY2IY/z7NSjt
g/1QSi/IqyLu4SRngPBRGhwSFSaWTFpUAXFnLp0DH1Ruwznk7CfQk39Fkb29mW68gydn
mhNX/Jvh9xuLVbsxRL9eDLytPBVE/dQ4xwHzFDNZoWACMn9JBVCYP2skJ+K5Yutrwvi1
sv3Q==
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=mj60xM+SE6Ds/iN1oTXybvTTQB5J9sXarzGGb2RzGpo=;
b=MGKaVXzjyxl960FS6DTZU5oF+nXApoGImQ8X9v3q3i9PIozrM5THgWBGjt2UqTDotx
yoYQBX+q/PFrJC4iTccpGgcmtwW41OBypxyAZSqwMzl1hG5V4YTs6BuMlJYVkPEmbS0u
44OOnaRrvDqTnvNq5zYrVrySzz+egnnCQz/39TM4qwpkoVrECgUqiBX++L2Ez6XxOKy5
lSxQCdW0xu4WOeEWiCjhBduQL4m4bj9Tmbc4jS0r4MYBry3WAJgaOEvNTVc0o0BP6ESd
+cfEdSR84ahh6/Hder/anfN6l2lXJ+ZCBgj76xMWR435kJwP9l1/dqoYW4vBTdENrIGC
JIEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531myjOCK8eUGgRw3ouspP7R78eResVlEE09QckD1ysddgfikn6L
klBlM9LX4D+D6tnZ5V4XpczXzdAmt8WlIuhtsPI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJys7QOGQu+VfitAC6x20NfpCPo8jReG+q3mAAG7Fb8duObDtDf3/QzfShymvST9UlG4IwcIsK7/rqOQxqK89/U=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:43c6:: with SMTP id u6mr8012349lfl.145.1621771714394;
Sun, 23 May 2021 05:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a05:651c:2109:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sun, 23 May 2021 05:08:33
-0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <KVDgWlVOrIW9ahW8jA8W1eSK-w0OzVEjx585MpJiNL-SuX9x-td_VzNEtFSDNj-bwulh_nLExtNBl4WD6x2Ipjp9bQvT4Jo3NIqoyDxoBBM=@protonmail.com>
References: <CANQHGB1N4E9=cqrkxDiUH5hAHgzURAJv+S7Vkf8xWEMJ=+T_AQ@mail.gmail.com>
<KVDgWlVOrIW9ahW8jA8W1eSK-w0OzVEjx585MpJiNL-SuX9x-td_VzNEtFSDNj-bwulh_nLExtNBl4WD6x2Ipjp9bQvT4Jo3NIqoyDxoBBM=@protonmail.com>
From: Karl <gmkarl@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 08:08:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CALL-=e7hHYm96KJEFEiTgEaSjK0VTcNcGypLVekmaxYNN+egEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>, Anton Ragin <anton@etc-group.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 23 May 2021 13:09:33 +0000
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 12:08:38 -0000
On 5/23/21, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@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@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.
|
