From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E067C0001 for ; Sun, 23 May 2021 14:41:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E32860689 for ; Sun, 23 May 2021 14:41:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.602 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: smtp3.osuosl.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from smtp3.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp3.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M14WTxJQ4FZ1 for ; Sun, 23 May 2021 14:41:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0 Received: from mail-pf1-x432.google.com (mail-pf1-x432.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::432]) by smtp3.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BB97605B2 for ; Sun, 23 May 2021 14:41:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-x432.google.com with SMTP id d16so18701744pfn.12 for ; Sun, 23 May 2021 07:41:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=NvtsQQcN9TIqKL2Upv/B7d0Qpku19kDRAX1cTEBuE94=; b=WbhdRIkxG0sVwltuSNp9QiQEE/bVYcmSOJnFTOZhBnUK9H3hj4dXP4zXdoesmWk1Ll zQrO6m4m0pZ1KCdBBLS08Fgb8/jTY/wkc1Fg2SSzlCnqIq8NeUBVfersXbQb9GFA1r92 fCxpUa3cmZJ7cmgBx3SbYd9018lLbVqA/O+2PsSoCw+ezs3f1PbEzn1+T992F6ho7ruw UDAbculKYekpv421BBs/Zqin/YbTImqvY+uvL4PQtipvMUgXrw6NN62ni1M5+WCFCPQQ KcX4G+xmOrrFpQEEZAppc/YXCJRXHZP/JDROaf0/ubXaKILpfgh9Y+DUmYdId72N+Q2U uJRg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=NvtsQQcN9TIqKL2Upv/B7d0Qpku19kDRAX1cTEBuE94=; b=El207GXnHzG7Ivsd0U7W2lldNWop5vt6khAVXFN1Q1YHTXmqA6CLcIG1UeIqY6xIHO +1TjfBIyHhaDY85kvOAsKPlVUqwMVb2ipGggM794rw9gIWW1kVU4iC1yNQNzhsAo79cI F5cwnXkGnnRr4bK/00KWK+5XY5sgFpu0XEgkmd2a8blFQ1iLKU47VmLohnbn0heMa6nt 7GY8zVGtPr56LrIkyiTg3/lWRyVqIrDXrAmB2acMwWT9dM9G/ZF+Afxv6SkxM99LLWVN CjcDkW4hfDsiC8qcyUzqOme0vFipUeb3yhrkhVHgJfKdq1rqfeYMsckukU+HdzC+Ho1l bq8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Bt7HUKbzm8mhon8mUV9job4NGCD85bqKP2xEy9Q8FW1qrfWtp sfwGYMMgCV8TPPps1XX5+SyPWs7XtjZG4DYaHpKR7VBvPrM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyslRc3iM7YJOqL6Kt6YLIt1U9xu8SdnxKq/uZfsV+kTuDU4RmpjYaf3sOeiMXmhqxd5Q+KvYXyo77PoRINccc= X-Received: by 2002:a65:6849:: with SMTP id q9mr8830778pgt.377.1621780867106; Sun, 23 May 2021 07:41:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: James Lu Date: Sun, 23 May 2021 10:40:31 -0400 Message-ID: To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007ccc2c05c3004859" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 23 May 2021 15:32:49 +0000 Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: 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 14:41:09 -0000 --0000000000007ccc2c05c3004859 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Well, it is done automatically every 4 years :) Bitcoin's price has always been increasing exponentially faster than the block size has been exponentially decreasing. > It is a self-balancing system - more people shout about Bitcoin being dirty -> less adoption -> lower the price -> less energy consumption. Surely we can strive for adoption and be environmentally friendly? Bitcoin currently consumes as much power as a small nation-state, giving it nation-state security. A 51% attack can reverse recent transactions. I don't think 99% of transactions need that level of security=E2=80=93 and if= we don't improve environmental-friendliness, adoption will decrease, so the price will decrease, so less mining will happen, so security will be hurt anyway. > I am all for making Bitcoin green(er), but IMHO there shall be no short-termism of the sort "Elon complained + price dropped 40% - lets go radically change things". I agree, Bitcoin shouldn't do anything just because a celebrity said something. However, this would be the ideal time to make such a change, riding off the public attitude to build social consensus around such a change. Also, this reduces inflation, good for Bitcoin hodlers ;) > IMHO if we want to make BTC cleaner we can add functionality where users can prioritise some miners over the others, with the view that users will prioritise "green" miners and they will get more TX fees, and there will be economic incentive to go green. This proposal would be great too. On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 6:42 AM Anton Ragin 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. > > I am all for making Bitcoin green(er), but IMHO there shall be no > short-termism of the sort "Elon complained + price dropped 40% - lets go > radically change things". > > IMHO if we want to make BTC cleaner we can add functionality where users > can prioritise some miners over the others, with the view that users will > prioritise "green" miners and they will get more TX fees, and there will = be > economic incentive to go green. > > On Sun, 23 May 2021, 09:49 James Lu via bitcoin-dev, < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Background >> =3D=3D=3D >> Reducing the block reward reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the >> maximum energy price at which mining is profitable, reducing the energy = use. >> >> Bitcoins have value because they are accepted by full node users, from >> individual node operators, to exchanges and custodians like Coinbase. >> Anything else and the Bitcoins don't exist and are worthless. Like all >> currencies, Bitcoin has value because others recognize that they have va= lue. >> >> Idea >> =3D=3D=3D >> Reduce the block reward by adding fewer coins to the UTXO set per block. >> This should be done gradually >> >> Consensus layer >> =3D=3D=3D >> This is a soft fork, because it tightens the >> >> Some Possible Weaknesses >> =3D=3D=3D >> - It will cost less than a nation-state of energy to reverse recent >> Bitcoin transactions. >> - Some miners may protest and lobby exchanges. >> - By pushing mining towards the cheapest energy sources, centralization >> increases towards Chinese miners. >> - The Bitcoin network may split if consensus is not built before flag da= y. >> >> However, given the current political headwinds and widespread public >> discussion around Bitcoin's energy use, it may be socially possible to >> ask individual users and major exchanges to install a version of Bitcoin >> with a reduced block reward. >> >> Alternatives >> =3D=3D=3D >> Instead of outright rejecting transactions (and the blocks that contain >> them) that attempt to spend increased block rewards, treat them as no-op= s. >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> > --0000000000007ccc2c05c3004859 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>=C2=A0Well, it is don= e automatically every 4 years :)
Bitcoin's price has always been increasing exponentially faster tha= n the block size has been exponentially decreasing.

> It is a self-b= alancing system - more people shout about Bitcoin being dirty -> less ad= option -> lower the price -> less energy consumption.
Surely we can strive for adoption and be = environmentally friendly?

Bitcoin currently consumes as mu= ch power as a small nation-state, giving it nation-state security.=C2=A0A 51% attack can reverse recent transactions. I don't think 99% of = transactions need that level of security=E2=80=93 and if we don't impro= ve environmental-friendliness, adoption will decrease, so the price will de= crease, so less mining will happen, so security will be hurt anyway.=

> I am all for making Bitcoin green(er), but IMHO there sh= all be no short-termism of the sort "Elon complained + price dropped 4= 0% - lets go radically change things".
I agree, Bitcoin shouldn't do anything just because a celebrity = said something. However, this would be the ideal time to make such a change= , riding off the public attitude to build social consensus around such a ch= ange.

Also, this reduces inflation, good for Bitcoin hodlers ;)
=

> IMHO if we want to make BTC cleaner we can add functionality where us= ers can prioritise some miners over the others, with the view that users wi= ll prioritise "green" miners and they will get more TX fees, and = there will be economic incentive to go green.
This proposal would be great too.

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 6:42 AM Anton Ragin <anton@etc-group.com> 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 th= e fact that in 2024 block rewards will fall 50% anyway and someday it will = be zero.

I am all for making B= itcoin green(er), but IMHO there shall be no short-termism of the sort &quo= t;Elon complained + price dropped 40% - lets go radically change things&quo= t;.

IMHO if we want to m= ake BTC cleaner we can add functionality where users can prioritise some mi= ners over the others, with the view that users will prioritise "green&= quot; miners and they will get more TX fees, and there will be economic inc= entive to go green.

On Sun, 23 May 2021, 09:49 James Lu via bitcoin-de= v, <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Ba= ckground
=3D=3D=3D
Reducing the block rew= ard reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the maximum energy price at w= hich mining is profitable, reducing the energy use.

Bitcoins have value because they are accepted by full node = users, from individual node operators, to exchanges and custodians like Coi= nbase. Anything else and the Bitcoins don't exist and are worthless. Li= ke all currencies, Bitcoin has value because others recognize that they hav= e value.

Idea
=3D=3D=3D
Reduce the block reward by adding f= ewer coins to the UTXO set per block. This should be done gradually

Consensus layer
=3D=3D= =3D
This is a soft fork, because it tightens the=C2=A0

Some Possible Weaknesses
=3D=3D=3D
- It will cost less than a nation-state of en= ergy to reverse recent Bitcoin transactions.
- Some miners= may protest and lobby exchanges.
- By pushing mining = towards the cheapest energy sources, centralization increases towards Chine= se miners.
- The Bitcoin network may split if consensus is= not built before flag day.

However,= given the current political headwinds and widespread public discussion around Bitcoin's energy use, it may b= e socially possible to ask individual users a= nd major exchanges to install a version of Bitcoin with a reduced block rew= ard.

Alternatives
=3D=3D=3D
Instead of outright rejectin= g transactions (and the blocks that contain them) that attempt to spend inc= reased block rewards, treat them as no-ops.
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundati= on.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
--0000000000007ccc2c05c3004859--