Could Bitcoin ditch mining?

[Galahad]

I was wondering if Bitcoin users could ever switch away from mining? It's very bad for the environment and just uses unnecessary resources. I'm a bit worried that it'll get so big that such a dramatic modification of the system would be too impractical.

So if nothing bad happens such as 51% attack could users agree to do a switch and if so how is that done?

[Welsh]

It could. But, it wont. People want to mine the rest of Bitcoin, when that has been done that's when Bitcoin will turn into a non mining currency. However, driving cars is bad for the environment, although people still drive cars and a average family has around 2 to 3 cars. Not mentioning other appliances in the house.

[Galahad]

It could. But, it wont. People want to mine the rest of Bitcoin, when that has been done that's when Bitcoin will turn into a non mining currency.

But that will take over 100 years.

However, driving cars is bad for the environment, although people still drive cars and a average family has around 2 to 3 cars. Not mentioning other appliances in the house.

Yeah but I don't agree with petrol / diesel cars either. We should be using electric or hydrogen by now.

[Welsh]

It could. But, it wont. People want to mine the rest of Bitcoin, when that has been done that's when Bitcoin will turn into a non mining currency.

But that will take over 100 years.

However, driving cars is bad for the environment, although people still drive cars and a average family has around 2 to 3 cars. Not mentioning other appliances in the house.

Yeah but I don't agree with petrol / diesel cars either. We should be using electric or hydrogen by now.

It might take 100 years, but that isn't going to stop anyone. If Bitcoin continues to rise then people will be encourage and more people will join. Also, as new mining equipment is introduced that figure may just decrease by a lot.

Electric cars are also bad. They still require batteries to run. The best way of transport and better for your health & the environment is to use your own legs. People seem to criticise Bitcoin because "how bad it is for the environment" however, we use cars, computers and other things which harm the environment. Considering the average person these days spends a lot of their time on a computer then what's the difference. As new mining equipment is introduced hopefully it will become better for the environment to stop people blaming Bitcoin. I heard recently that someone blamed Bitcoin for global warming. Even though, the earth hasn't been warming it's actually been cooling and the sun as been at a low, lowest it's been for a good while.

[Akka]

No, the proof of work system currently is the only absolute decentralized method that has proofed itself to work for a network like Bitcoin to find conses.

Unless we find another system for this purpose, mining is necessary.

The purpose of mining is not the creation of bitcoins, neither to make the miners money

[Welsh]

No, the proof of work system currently is the only absolute decentralized method that has proofed itself to work for a network like Bitcoin to find conses.

Unless we find another system for this purpose, mining is necessary.

The purpose of mining is not the creation of bitcoins, neither to make the miners money

It's become that. People who have recently come into the game, simply want to make money. Therefore, their first attempt is to mine. Even, though mining isn't very profitable any more due to the pricing on the rigs.

[Luno]

Most ordinary currencies have taken an enormous government apparatus, wars and corruption. How is that for environmentally friendliness? 

[Akka]

No, the proof of work system currently is the only absolute decentralized method that has proofed itself to work for a network like Bitcoin to find conses.

Unless we find another system for this purpose, mining is necessary.

The purpose of mining is not the creation of bitcoins, neither to make the miners money

It's become that. People who have recently come into the game, simply want to make money. Therefore, their first attempt is to mine. Even, though mining isn't very profitable any more due to the pricing on the rigs.

No, people think that, but that changes nothing at the underling purpose and at the fact that Bitcoin can't work without mining.

That People fail to understand something and believe otherwise doesn't change it.

[Welsh]

No, the proof of work system currently is the only absolute decentralized method that has proofed itself to work for a network like Bitcoin to find conses.

Unless we find another system for this purpose, mining is necessary.

The purpose of mining is not the creation of bitcoins, neither to make the miners money

It's become that. People who have recently come into the game, simply want to make money. Therefore, their first attempt is to mine. Even, though mining isn't very profitable any more due to the pricing on the rigs.

No, people think that, but that changes nothing at the underling purpose and at the fact that Bitcoin can't work without mining.

That People fail to understand something and believe otherwise doesn't change it.

It's true that Bitcoin can't work without mining. I haven't said anything different. But, it seems that every new comer has become obsessed with mining just for the money and haven't researched it. There's actually information for newbies on mining and why it benefits the community on this forum.

[Akka]

No, the proof of work system currently is the only absolute decentralized method that has proofed itself to work for a network like Bitcoin to find conses.

Unless we find another system for this purpose, mining is necessary.

The purpose of mining is not the creation of bitcoins, neither to make the miners money

It's become that. People who have recently come into the game, simply want to make money. Therefore, their first attempt is to mine. Even, though mining isn't very profitable any more due to the pricing on the rigs.

No, people think that, but that changes nothing at the underling purpose and at the fact that Bitcoin can't work without mining.

That People fail to understand something and believe otherwise doesn't change it.

It's true that Bitcoin can't work without mining. I haven't said anything different. But, it seems that every new comer has become obsessed with mining just for the money and haven't researched it. There's actually information for newbies on mining and why it benefits the community on this forum.

The point of this thread was the question if bitcoin could ditch mining. And my answer is no. Sorry if I interpreted your reply to my answer as an disagreement with that.

[Galahad]

It might take 100 years, but that isn't going to stop anyone. If Bitcoin continues to rise then people will be encourage and more people will join. Also, as new mining equipment is introduced that figure may just decrease by a lot.

Electric cars are also bad. They still require batteries to run. The best way of transport and better for your health & the environment is to use your own legs. People seem to criticise Bitcoin because "how bad it is for the environment" however, we use cars, computers and other things which harm the environment. Considering the average person these days spends a lot of their time on a computer then what's the difference. As new mining equipment is introduced hopefully it will become better for the environment to stop people blaming Bitcoin. I heard recently that someone blamed Bitcoin for global warming. Even though, the earth hasn't been warming it's actually been cooling and the sun as been at a low, lowest it's been for a good while.

But again, with a computer, if there was some sort of more environmental alternative I would choose that.

Mining by itself doesn't add anything and if we had the option to reduce the power consumption to nearly zero then that's obviously a good thing. It's like choosing to use a car which does 0 miles to the gallon over 50. One is clearly better for everyone.

Most ordinary currencies have taken an enormous government apparatus, wars and corruption. How is that for environmentally friendliness?  

It's not environmental either!

No, the proof of work system currently is the only absolute decentralized method that has proofed itself to work for a network like Bitcoin to find conses.

Unless we find another system for this purpose, mining is necessary.

The purpose of mining is not the creation of bitcoins, neither to make the miners money

If it's necessary then it's fine to me because it uses less power than existing bank systems so it's actually a more environmental alternative. But if there was a way to avoid that power usage then I hope we find it. What's wrong with proof-of-stake though?

[darkmule]

Yeah but I don't agree with petrol / diesel cars either. We should be using electric or hydrogen by now.

The vast majority of hydrogen is generated by processing natural gas, a fossil fuel.  The remnant is generated by hydrolysis, which uses electricity.  Obviously, of course, electric cars use electricity.

How do we generate electricity?  Largely by burning fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal (or fuel oil), and nuclear power.  Of those, only nuclear power is carbon-neutral, although it has its own issues.  Without replacing our sources of electricity, electric cars are not really a solution.  (Also, the batteries in electric cars contain highly toxic compounds.)

So while electric and hydrogen cars are a good idea and we should be using them to some degree, at present, they are just another way of consuming fossil fuels.

[Welsh]

Mining by itself doesn't add anything and if we had the option to reduce the power consumption to nearly zero then that's obviously a good thing. It's like choosing to use a car which does 0 miles to the gallon over 50. One is clearly better for everyone.

I'm sorry, mining doesn't do anything? Please back this up with information.


Do you own Bitcoin yourself? Mining Confirms prior transactions by adding to the block chain. But, just so you know mining is absolutely vital to Bitcoin, please read: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Category:Mining

[Akka]

If it's necessary then it's fine to me because it uses less power than existing bank systems so it's actually a more environmental alternative. But if there was a way to avoid that power usage then I hope we find it. What's wrong with proof-of-stake though?

Proof of stake has the problem that it artificially creates entry barriers against new competition. While proof of work has a low entry marked (as soon as miners would make to much money, new miners will pop up and existing miners can do nothing against it) the only way for new competition with proof of stake is to get the current miners (coin holders) to give their coins away. Therefore proof of stake tends towards centralization.

(I like the general Idea though, but this is the reason why I don't see it work)

[Galahad]

The vast majority of hydrogen is generated by processing natural gas, a fossil fuel.  The remnant is generated by hydrolysis, which uses electricity.  Obviously, of course, electric cars use electricity.

How do we generate electricity?  Largely by burning fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal (or fuel oil), and nuclear power.  Of those, only nuclear power is carbon-neutral, although it has its own issues.  Without replacing our sources of electricity, electric cars are not really a solution.  (Also, the batteries in electric cars contain highly toxic compounds.)

So while electric and hydrogen cars are a good idea and we should be using them to some degree, at present, they are just another way of consuming fossil fuels.

Yes I've had this discussion about the new Tesla cars after they released a new video of battery swaps. Electric actually turns out to be better than hydrogen due to the fact that hydrogen has to come from natural gas. But at least with electric you can control the CO2 emissions at the power plant easier then you can in each individual car. No solution so far is perfect. Even with solar generation you have to make the panels which must again be done using electric which may come from gas and some coal again. The batteries can be recycled.

[Akka]

The vast majority of hydrogen is generated by processing natural gas, a fossil fuel.  The remnant is generated by hydrolysis, which uses electricity.  Obviously, of course, electric cars use electricity.

How do we generate electricity?  Largely by burning fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal (or fuel oil), and nuclear power.  Of those, only nuclear power is carbon-neutral, although it has its own issues.  Without replacing our sources of electricity, electric cars are not really a solution.  (Also, the batteries in electric cars contain highly toxic compounds.)

So while electric and hydrogen cars are a good idea and we should be using them to some degree, at present, they are just another way of consuming fossil fuels.

Yes I've had this discussion about the new Tesla cars after they released a new video of battery swaps. Electric actually turns out to be better than hydrogen due to the fact that hydrogen has to come from natural gas. But at least with electric you can control the CO2 emissions at the power plant easier then you can in each individual car. No solution so far is perfect. Even with solar generation you have to make the panels which must again be done using electric which may come from gas and some coal again. The batteries can be recycled.

OT, but: Electric cars have anther advantage. They contain a (relatively) large power storage.

All renewable energy that don't relay on "burning" something like wind, sun, tides, etc. have the problem that they are unreliable.

If there are millions of power storages attached to the grid they can be used to stabilize the grid. All that's needed is that the cars not only load their batteries from the grid, but also give power back if needed. All that's needed to make this interesting is that car owners get a little premium on power that's taken from their cars.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid

[Samir_H]

Charge during night and discharge over day.

On topic, I don't see that happening.