From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp4.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8DCC0001 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Sun, 23 May 2021 12:08:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-x129.google.com with SMTP id w33so28578659lfu.7 for ; 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: References: From: Karl Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 08:08:33 -0400 Message-ID: To: ZmnSCPxj , Anton Ragin , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 12:08:38 -0000 On 5/23/21, ZmnSCPxj via bitcoin-dev 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 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.