Development for Bitcoin to reduce CO2 footprint

[konfuzius5278]

One actual things we have to think about:

1) Many european country will involve somethink like CO2 tax for a good reason. These people producing the most C02 with driving big SUV will pay more.
Of course this will rise price of electricity and people more and more understand about the idea of POW not the best point.

2) Maybe i mention earlier , Eurpean Union had a "green" election . Maybe they simply forbid using POW Cryptocurrency

3) I read one article in a normally very conservative and legit newspaper:
   They say whe have to stop our behavior immidiatly, otherwiese there will be a point of no return in less then 2 years. So Bitcoin gets instable because of other technologie. Lets say yes and now we get to really importantent problems.

[1715156853]

1715156853

[1715156853]

1715156853

[1715156853]

1715156853

[1715156853]

1715156853

[1715156853]

1715156853

[educart]

Until you find a way in which mining will require few resources and at the same time the network will remain reliable like Bitcoin, then you should not expect that at least someone will be able to move the BTC from the position of leader. I want ideal conditions, but so far no such methods have been invented.

[konfuzius5278]

Anyone who still denies climate change after these massive bush burnings in australia is nothing more then stupid.

1) Its farwide consens of all scientist that this is mam made.

2) There is an actual work that the climate change even appear on local wether meanwhile


And we still mine POW Cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin has currently a energeny consumption of 638 kwh per Transaction and a min of 51,92 TWh in total.
 
As I said simply stupidiy. As I said you can not eat money.

[Chris!]

Bitcoin has currently a energeny consumption of 638 kwh per Transaction and a min of 51,92 TWh in total.
 
As I said simply stupidiy. As I said you can not eat money.

Fiat money is more expensive to create, because it's physical. How much energy is used to create and then move around one roll of nickels? The answer, is about as impossible to figure out as your 51.92 TWh figure. It's all guesses. What if part of that hash rate is some new ASIC that no one's ever heard of (happens a lot)?

Anyway, you create it and move it around. That's a huge problem with fiat, and you haven't even started! After the fiat is created and distributed (to the top 0.01% through quantitative easing) fiat money is then paid to the government (through taxes). The government then uses that fiat money to fund their wars. Wars use a massive amount of energy and also kill many many people on both sides. What happens when governments no longer print the money? They can't afford forever wars anymore.

Why not fixate on something that you can actually change, like governments wasting tons of energy on war, or creating a worthless currency? Why not fight against government subsidies on building highways? Your tax dollars paid for roads, so gas guzzling cars can buzz around and destroy our planet. Every statist you've ever met is the biggest problem with climate change.

Bitcoin, the new monetary system, changes all of that.

[konfuzius5278]

Bitcoin has currently a energeny consumption of 638 kwh per Transaction and a min of 51,92 TWh in total.
 
As I said simply stupidiy. As I said you can not eat money.

Fiat money is more expensive to create, because it's physical. How much energy is used to create and then move around one roll of nickels? The answer, is about as impossible to figure out as your 51.92 TWh figure. It's all guesses. What if part of that hash rate is some new ASIC that no one's ever heard of (happens a lot)?

Anyway, you create it and move it around. That's a huge problem with fiat, and you haven't even started! After the fiat is created and distributed (to the top 0.01% through quantitative easing) fiat money is then paid to the government (through taxes). The government then uses that fiat money to fund their wars. Wars use a massive amount of energy and also kill many many people on both sides. What happens when governments no longer print the money? They can't afford forever wars anymore.

Why not fixate on something that you can actually change, like governments wasting tons of energy on war, or creating a worthless currency? Why not fight against government subsidies on building highways? Your tax dollars paid for roads, so gas guzzling cars can buzz around and destroy our planet. Every statist you've ever met is the biggest problem with climate change.

Bitcoin, the new monetary system, changes all of that.

In the starting threat I mentioned that pointing on others is like kinderkarden.
Apart from that how many TX can be made with this piece of paper or even a metall penny. Lets say 1000 TX via paper and 10000 TX via metal money. And who says you need cash any more?

And of course its a guess. But when you look at the website I mentioned they explain exactly where the ideas come from. And thats a good estimated guess. Its even too good for Bitcoin to see all hashrate made by Antminer S17e, the newest one.

[HarmonyA]

Most locales offer approaches to buy power from elective vitality providers. On the other hand, you can purchase sustainable power source endorsements or their counterparts, which are tradable testaments compensating makers of sustainable power source.

Some expectation that the utilization of inexhaustible force on the bitcoin system will increase. The bitcoin mining framework is appropriate to renewables.

[blckhawk]

Good points. Bitcoin is still not a payment system when talking about global international payment standards, but could only be considered a way of transferring funds without limitations by banks.

Lightning Network is still anticipated, and while it solves scalability issues, it goes back to one root problem (or not), which is introduction of centralization in the network.

POS could be one solution, but needs a fork and the effects are still not guaranteed.

[Chris!]

In the starting threat I mentioned that pointing on others is like kinderkarden.

100% agree. Reads OP  SMH.

Don't like it? Do something about it. Good luck with that.

[johnyj]

This is always an very interesting topic

Fundamentally you need to put some valuable resource in exchange for the bitcoin, that's the best thing with cryptocurrency. It is produced at certain cost, not borrowed from GOD, like fiat money

However, there are 2 major problems with mining:

1. mining is not a very effective way to convert energy into bitcoin: Most of the energy is wasted as heat. If ASICs were made of superconductive material and never generate any heat, then there is no inefficiency of the current mining model: The competetion will always push the chip+energy cost to market value of coin, the waste is minimum, and the world climate will not be impacted

2. A forever increasing coin price will lead to a forever increasing energy consumption, which eventually exhaust all the energy supply on the planet and cause the government to ban the mining like IRAN just did. This will put a upper limit for how high a coin's value can be

So, although spend energy to exchange newly created money sounds very fair, but burning energy to exchange coin is not an optimal way.

I think eventually everything that has value should contain some kind of energy, since human are just energy thirsty animals: We use energy to fulfill all our demands: Food, cloth, house, travel, entertainment, etc... Energy is a fundamental part of anything that has value


PoS coin use another logic: Since energy always can be bought by fiat money, why not just use fiat money to exchange cryptocurrency, so that all the inefficiencies and capacity limitations in mining can be avoided.

So the core question for PoS coin is: Does fiat money also contains energy, just like electricity?

Maybe producing fiat money does not take a lot of energy, but to ensure its value takes police, armies and governments, banks etc complicated sovereign organizations. You can easily write a IOU bill, but the acceptance of that bill would need you to back it with valuable assets and contract etc..., lots of energy, especially when that bill is very large. Fiat money has wide acceptance, that ensures it can exchange any kind of energy

Then people don't need to spend huge amount of electricity just to win the game of poping coins, the same electricity can be used to do useful things, like cutting trees or pave roads, and these kind of jobs can receive fiat money as reward, then people use fiat money to buy cryptocurrencies and stake them

Given same amount of energy, PoS coin has much higher efficiency due to that it does not need direct energy input in exchange for the coins. It still takes energy to make money, but those energy will be used on other more meaningful things

Given same amount of fiat money, PoS coin has higher utilization, since PoW coin miners must convert those fiat money to energy first and lose a large part of it as heat in the mining process


Edit: BTW, I discovered in this thought process, that spending money also has different type of efficiency: The best efficiency comes from that your investment ROIed and generated some extra income, and the worst efficiency is that you just buy some fireworks and burn it

[odolvlobo]

...
However, there are 2 major problems with mining:

1. mining is not a very effective way to convert energy into bitcoin: Most of the energy is wasted as heat. If ASICs were made of superconductive material and never generate any heat, then there is no inefficiency of the current mining model: The competition will always push the chip+energy cost to market value of coin, the waste is minimum, and the world climate will not be impacted

2. A forever increasing coin price will lead to a forever increasing energy consumption, which eventually exhaust all the energy supply on the planet and cause the government to ban the mining like IRAN just did. This will put a upper limit for how high a coin's value can be
...

1. As explained elsewhere, the energy used in mining must be wasted because of the economic incentives. There is no way around it without changing how mining works.

2. Energy consumption of mining depends on the price only because of the subsidy. The subsidy is halved every 4 years so energy consumption becomes less dependent on price and more dependent on transaction fees over time.

The most direct and effective way to reduce the energy consumption of Bitcoin mining is to raise the cost of the energy.

[johnyj]

1. As explained elsewhere, the energy used in mining must be wasted because of the economic incentives. There is no way around it without changing how mining works.

2. Energy consumption of mining depends on the price only because of the subsidy. The subsidy is halved every 4 years so energy consumption becomes less dependent on price and more dependent on transaction fees over time.

The most direct and effective way to reduce the energy consumption of Bitcoin mining is to raise the cost of the energy.

1. True, for PoW coin, energy is consumed in the mining process. But for PoS coin, energy is not consumed but stayed inside each staking nodes. Why waste it when you can preserve it?

Mining is just a way for fair competetion. Wether the energy input must be in form of electricity and consumed is to be debated. For example, if satoshi designed the bitcoin to have a chemical miner and require people to input petroleum to do the calculation, then it will create another type of synergy around oil industry. And maybe in future, when quantum miner is invented but require a special kind of atom to do the calculation, then this special material will become the core of mining success

So it depends on how you design this fair competetion model. I believe that fiat money is more decentralized than electricity, so using fiat money as energy input will make it more available for everyone



2. It is true that in future, fee income will replace block reward, however, is must be high enough to protect the network. For example, you have only a few million dollars income per block but the network carries transactions of billions of dollars per block, there is a high incentive to compromise the network to invalid some billion dollar transactions, since the cost will be 1/1000 of that. The BCH/BSV fork war just demonstrated that there can be backup hash power moved into a coin just to totally change how the network runs

PoS coin does not have this problem since the security from each staking node are equally higher when coin value is higher.

[Ucy]

PoS(from what I know) isn't really a good solution either. Too much power is given to people with large stake. I think this is technically centralization, because you centralize important decisions making with no checks and balances, and no quick remedies to potential violations.. Another potential problem with the staking model is that it will encourage wealthy people within a decentralized networks to have to much influence on things. This can be used by bad actors against the network... So, there should be ways to check any potential abuse from this. I believe reliance on principles will be one of the most important ways to help checkmate them.  Besides, if you are depending on principles, you probably will not allow that kind of Power concentration from staking model.

In regards to number 3, some kind of Proof of Work that is environmentally friendly can reduce/prevent the problem. Should probably be the most efficient pow available that does very important work. Decentralized networks need to avoid things that are energy(even good energy) demanding when there are better alternatives that do very useful jobs efficiently without sacrificing any Bitcoin/decentralization principles.  If a decentralized community focuses mostly on doing useful and good things, our energy usage will be justified, as long as it is good energy.

[johnyj]

PoS(from what I know) isn't really a good solution either. Too much power is given to people with large stake. I think this is technically centralization, because you centralize important decisions making with no checks and balances, and no quick remedies to potential violations.. Another potential problem with the staking model is that it will encourage wealthy people within a decentralized networks to have to much influence on things. This can be used by bad actors against the network... So, there should be ways to check any potential abuse from this. I believe reliance on principles will be one of the most important ways to help checkmate them.  Besides, if you are depending on principles, you probably will not allow that kind of Power concentration from staking model.

In regards to number 3, some kind of Proof of Work that is environmentally friendly can reduce/prevent the problem. Should probably be the most efficient pow available that does very important work. Decentralized networks need to avoid things that are energy(even good energy) demanding when there are better alternatives that do very useful jobs efficiently without sacrificing any Bitcoin/decentralization principles.  If a decentralized community focuses mostly on doing useful and good things, our energy usage will be justified, as long as it is good energy.

Before, we discussed about how to decentralize mining using ASIC-resistant algorithm, so that only corridor miners with free electricity and GPU can survice in the long run, and that will hopefully reach a high level of decentralization. But it proved to be unsuccessful, since there will just be large pools collecting and buying those miners hash rate, and those large pools will reach monopol sooner or later. So the centralization of power is always a self-strengthening trend, regardless of what mining mechanism you select. The only way to deal with that is coin competetion, e.g. at least you have 2-3 coins of the same type, so that one of them will not go rogue

But my point is, given same amount of electricity, instead of just burn it to get some coin, if you could first use those electricity to do other useful things, and then use earned money to stake and get same amount of coin, that is much higher efficiency from a pure energy utilization point of view