Sustainability of BTC

[CryptoDude2727]

With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution?  It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this.  Anyone have good insight?  It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail.  Thanks! 

[baradfo]

It's a good question for the pools to answer. Eventually the last bitcoin will be mined and then the fees for bitcoin will be more than the transactions themselves. The electricity/maintenance costs will also be through the roof. I'm thinking that Satoshi didn't take into account pools in the original writing and that the more distributed network this could have worked out. With pools it's kinda hard to figure how this would play out to keep the network sustainable after the block reward goes away.

[CryptoBry]

With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution?  It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this.  Anyone have good insight?  It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail.  Thanks! 

This is actually a very valid concern though we have to realize that all industries are consuming electricity and Bitcoin is not exempted, of course. However, further developments have to focus on how to turn those mining rigs to consume less power. I am sure that later on there would be mining rigs that are already power-efficient because there is a demand for this. We need to have those mining equipment replacing the ones we are currently using. We also have to encourage more miners to use sustainable energy sources as a way to lessen the Bitcoin impact to the environment as should all industries we have globally.

[jseverson]

One quick solution is the use of renewable energy. The technology for it is rapidly improving and the costs for equipment are slowly going down. Countries are already seeking solutions to be able to completely switch to renewable sources of energy, so it shouldn't be that big of a challenge. Heck, Google has already achieved it:

http://fortune.com/2017/12/01/google-clean-energy/

Of course, it's going to be a little more complicated for miners as they are comprised of many different entities, but they do have the incentive of cheaper electricity. In fact, some of them have already started switching. Of course, we have no idea when Bitcoin can go completely renewable, but at least there's a solution on the horizon. It's at least simpler in terms of not needing consensus unlike tinkering with the proof of work algorithm.

[Shamie1002]

I totally agree. Energy consumption are one of the problem nowadays. We all know that China have banned local exchanges though they have the cheapest electricity bills. I think that is the reason why some miners agreed about forks. Or else no one will mine at all questioning the sustainability of bitcoins.
How Bout countries which has no solutions for such concerns. Like you all call third world countries. Will they just stop ?

[Rabiulawal12]

With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution?  It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this.  Anyone have good insight?  It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail.  Thanks! 

Since bitcoin mining is very competitive, only those miners will survive who apply the most competitive mining hardware and benefit from the lowest electricity costs. The sustainability of bitcoin on itself therefore is not primarily at risk due to energy consumption.

[Kakmakr]

Most power plants are throttling down on the generation of electricity, because people are using less electricity. The local rates might be too high and people would switch over to gas or solar. <getting off the grid> The Surplus energy is there for the taking, but there are less demand for it.

Why can that surplus energy not be used for Bitcoin mining? They can subsidize Bitcoin mining farms with cheap surplus electricity and fund more sustainable "Green" technologies with that income. <Doing away with Coal or Nuclear plants and creating solar farms and wind farms> 

[ajmapalo22]

There is really a chance that the supply of bitcoin cannot cover the increasing demand which will be the reason why it can sustain the market but we shouldn't be worry because developers are looking on it besides the value of bitcoin can always increase to cope up the needs in supply. I think bitcoin can manage to sustain in the market forever.

[FundFantasy]

With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution?  It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this.  Anyone have good insight?  It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail.  Thanks!  

We wouldn't see the electricity consumption as a big of a challenge
renewable energy may be the solution were seeking. The technology is rapidly improving and the costs for equipment are decreasing.

[aardvark15]

With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution?  It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this.  Anyone have good insight?  It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail.  Thanks! 

I’m not a miner, but the energy costs are part of the miner’s costs along with the cost of their computers, other equipment, and their time. We as users pay fees to the miners for their costs. As the costs of energy rise, most likely the fees we pay will rise. At some point the fees could get so high that we send fewer transactions. We may end up only using Bitcoin as a store of value. If this happens, other more energy efficient altcoins will have to be used for every day functions like method of payment, etc.

[olubams]

With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution?  It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this.  Anyone have good insight?  It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail.  Thanks! 

When it comes to sustainability, I don't think its in our place to start bothering over that because I believe that for Satoshi to have gone off the gird and not available to always do some update on what is going on, means to a large extent, most of the issues we bother ourselves over, had already been settled even before we all find our way to bitcoin. So intstead of bothering myself over what I cannot possibly change, I would rather focus it on things that matter and let sustainability takes care of itself.

[FaithETH]

It's indeed something to be concerned of. Any research and development may need to try and find out how to make it less energy consuming to mine bitcoin. It will be in demand after all, nobody want outrageous transaction fees. Me personally I would like to see this worked on really quickly so we can be sure that we aren't in for a crazy ride.

[FrueGreads]

I’m not a miner, but the energy costs are part of the miner’s costs along with the cost of their computers, other equipment, and their time. We as users pay fees to the miners for their costs. As the costs of energy rise, most likely the fees we pay will rise. At some point the fees could get so high that we send fewer transactions. We may end up only using Bitcoin as a store of value. If this happens, other more energy efficient altcoins will have to be used for every day functions like method of payment, etc.

That is not how the fee system works, so electricity costs and mining fees are not really related. Miners don't set the fees, we are the ones that set the fees. Miners simply give priority to transactions that are paying higher fees, so fees actually increase or decrease based on what the users are willing to pay to get their transactions through, and are not dependent on the costs that miners have in maintaining the network safe.

According to recent statistics, miners annualized global revenues are around $9bln, and their annualized global mining costs are just $1bln, so mining costs are not really a concern to them. Although the scenario you described should not really be a problem, the energy consumption related to mining should of course be addressed, and miners should try to use renewable sources of energy. Apparently a Tesla S owner, decided to use his car's supercharger to mine bitcoin. I don't think electric car owners should do this, because they will probably damage their car in the long run, but at least people are trying different approaches when it comes to mining, so I'm sure we will be just fine in the future, and we won't even need to change to POS like ethererum is planning.

[BurtW]

With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution?  It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this.  Anyone have good insight?  It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail.  Thanks! 

This is actually a very valid concern though we have to realize that all industries are consuming electricity and Bitcoin is not exempted, of course. However, further developments have to focus on how to turn those mining rigs to consume less power. I am sure that later on there would be mining rigs that are already power-efficient because there is a demand for this. We need to have those mining equipment replacing the ones we are currently using. We also have to encourage more miners to use sustainable energy sources as a way to lessen the Bitcoin impact to the environment as should all industries we have globally.

Making "mining rigs to consume less power" has no effect on the total amount of energy used by the Bitcoin system because miners will just buy more rigs.

See

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2465881.0

Also note that miners will always use the cheapest form of energy.  If electricity from renewable sources is cheaper they will use that.  If electricity from burning coal is cheaper they will use that.  If the cheapest electricity comes from nuclear power plants they will use that.

[exstasie]

With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution?  It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this.  Anyone have good insight?  It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail.  Thanks!  

I'm not sure what you're getting at, exactly. Bitcoin's difficulty algorithm is meant to adjust to waxing and waning levels of miner investment. As Bitcoin becomes less profitable to mine, rational marginal miners will start shutting down their operations. By the same token, hash rate continues to trend upwards because of heightened speculation on the future price of BTC.

It's a "gold rush" so to speak. It will eventually die down when profitability drops (maybe because of miner oversaturation or a long term bear market), and difficulty will adjust accordingly. Just as difficulty has been trending upwards for so long, it's okay for it to trend downwards. We just don't want to see a sudden, drastic drop in hash rate that puts security at risk by allowing old generation mining equipment to attack the network. As long as fees rise to replace the block subsidy, that risk should be mitigated.

[yoseph]

It's indeed something to be concerned of. Any research and development may need to try and find out how to make it less energy consuming to mine bitcoin. It will be in demand after all, nobody want outrageous transaction fees. Me personally I would like to see this worked on really quickly so we can be sure that we aren't in for a crazy ride.

If the issue with the absurd transaction fees are not fixed any time from now, i doubt that people are going to keep patronizing bitcoins as we do now, I will not be surprised if we start paying $100 as transactions fees because of the greed of some miners.

[Reid]

I am seeing a large number of transactions that will happen if ever there will be no more to be mined.
That is all the miners could get, but I am guessing it will be expensive transactions also if we are always converting.
If it will just be bitcoin to bitcoin without the conversion then we will look at it as cheap prices.
Thousands of satoshis? Maybe decrease the price of bitcoin just so we will never look at dollar anymore.

[BurtW]

With the power requirements to run the BTC network continually increasing... what is the long term solution?  It doesn't seem viable that it can go on forever like this.  Anyone have good insight?  It's easy to just assume... "well there will be cheaper energy in the future" or "BTC will just switch to POS".... I guess I'm looking for answers with a little more substance and detail.  Thanks!  

I'm not sure what you're getting at, exactly. Bitcoin's difficulty algorithm is meant to adjust to waxing and waning levels of miner investment. As Bitcoin becomes less profitable to mine, rational marginal miners will start shutting down their operations. By the same token, hash rate continues to trend upwards because of heightened speculation on the future price of BTC.

It's a "gold rush" so to speak. It will eventually die down when profitability drops (maybe because of miner oversaturation or a long term bear market), and difficulty will adjust accordingly. Just as difficulty has been trending upwards for so long, it's okay for it to trend downwards. We just don't want to see a sudden, drastic drop in hash rate that puts security at risk by allowing old generation mining equipment to attack the network. As long as fees rise to replace the block subsidy, that risk should be mitigated.

The concern isn't the difficulty adjustment or anything having to difficulty.  The concern, which I think is valid, is the total amount of energy being consumed by all the miners added together.  It is a lot.  If the price goes to $45,000 per BTC as some predict then the amount of energy used to mine will go up by a factor of about 4.5 and the network will consume even more power.

The question being asked is "what can be done about the total power consumption of the entire Bitcoin system".  It is a fair question.  Unfortunately there is no answer without fundamental changes to Bitcoin (POS instead of POW as one example) because it is working exactly as designed:  miners will burn as much energy as they can afford to burn in order to secure the system.

[browder07]

The more expensive the bitcoin. not only in the capital poured in. but due to the energy consumption of the miners. They need better technology. more power consumption. if bitcoin switch to pos. All the diggers will be unemployed ^^!

[gudrun]

waste energy. expensive machinery, time consuming. bitcoin is increasingly difficult to dig. That proved to be bitcoin increasingly valuable. if bitcoin turns into pos. It's too good for those who have a lot of bitcoins. They do not need to do anything.