From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 617D3C0001 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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