CBM- Central Bank Mining....a cure?

[onisuk20]

Given that central banks are among those slowest to adopt new and efficient technology (magnetic tape and paper documentation is still how most banks globally operate), and are guilty of the most inefficient and bloated structures and wasteful practices, I'd be very surprised if they were able to provide the most efficient energy usage were they to go into mining.

So aside from the political reasons why "CBM" won't be a cure -- they have to accept they're not even viable for consideration.

When you say efficient technology you're not talking about BTC right???

The average energy consumption for one single Bitcoin transaction in 2020 was 741 kilowatt-hours.

That's pure insanity to me... People need to stop turning a blind eye to what we are doing here, this isn't efficient, it's insane!

[1715149814]

1715149814

[1715149814]

1715149814

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin will never change into a centralized system controlled by governments or anyone else, forget about it. You are wasting time by making such proposals, there's already countless centralized projects without mining, and they aren't overtaking Bitcoin anytime soon.

And Bitcoin is not wasting energy, there's no other way to have a system with these properties. All this energy ensures that Bitcoin is secure.

[onisuk20]

Bitcoin will never change into a centralized system controlled by governments or anyone else, forget about it. You are wasting time by making such proposals, there's already countless centralized projects without mining, and they aren't overtaking Bitcoin anytime soon.

And Bitcoin is not wasting energy, there's no other way to have a system with these properties. All this energy ensures that Bitcoin is secure.

What you've just said there is utter BS and your attitude stinks...
There is always improvement to be made.

Explain to me how over 700kwh for a transaction is in anyway justifiable???

[nullius]

This is one of the dumbest ideas that I have heard in—well, in about the past week or so.  The world is just full of stupid ideas.

This Bitcoin thing.  You do not know how it works.

What you've just said there is utter BS and your attitude stinks...

Stupid ideas should get short shrift.  And your idea is not only stupid:  It is also actively harmful in a way indistinguishable from malice.  You should be treated accordingly.

Whereas your attitude stinks:  You make grandiose pronouncements from abject ignorance, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you expect for people to listen to you.  Fuck off.


A reply to DannyHamilton:

So, my first question is, if you were going to implement your idea...
How do you stop me from running mining equipment in my house in the U.S.?
How do you stop someone else from running mining equipment in their house in Spain?
How do you enforce your idea so that the Central Banks are the only miners?

If central banks want to be miners, they can already do that.  Nothing is stopping them.  But your idea isn't adding Central Banks as miners, your idea is REMOVING all other miners from the world. What are you going to do, knock on doors and inspect households and shoot anyone that is found to be in possession of mining equipment?

[...]

The same way other chains do, only accept valid blocks from an approved list of nodes, You can mine if you like but you won't get any reward for it...

So, he wants to build a permissioned signet.  Obviously, this solves none of the problems that the Nakamoto consensus was designed to solve, while still having all the inefficiencies of the blockchain.  It is the worst of all worlds.

Of course, the end of this story is transaction censorship—which the Nakamoto consensus was designed to prevent.  Central bank miners could all agree to blacklist UTXOs and refuse to accept transactions that they deemed undesirable.  Hmmm, maybe OP is not a n00b—maybe he is an alt of Mike Hearn...  /s

It is fortunate, Danny, that as you and I know, OP has no plan for forcing nodes to accept his special signet blocks and/or prevent nodes from accepting Bitcoin blocks.  What’s his plan for that?  Require a licence to run a node?  LOL.  Either his central bank miner blocks will not violate consensus (perhaps hacking the signature into coinbase), and nodes will treat them just like any other blocks—or the blocks will violate consensus, and nodes will route them >/dev/null.

Such an abysmal display of technological incompetence would be pitiable, if it were not so ugly and presented with such brash conceit.

Let’s see what other n00b errors he commits:

The idea solves this dumb race to be the first to compute a block, this is driving energy use to the moon, not just the price!

The belief that hashpower drives Bitcoin’s value, rather than vice versa as is actually the case.

If there is a fixed number of mining farms then there is only ever XYZ amount of hash power available, this then causes a difficulty readjustment much lower to maintain the 10min/block ratio.

Total incomprehension of why the mining process exists—again.

The community would set a reasonable hash limit to the central banks, via on-chain voting.

More of the same total incomprehension.  Of course, if there is a way to set a limit on hashpower, there is no reason to use proof-of-work at all.

If there is a hash limit then there won't be competitive mining, it would just be there for the pure purpose of validating and securing the blockchain.

Zero understanding of the rôle of miners.  (Nodes validate and secure the blockchain.  Miners provide BFT consensus for transaction ordering.)

Eh, enough waste of time with this nonsense.

[onisuk20]

I've been involved in BTC since early 2013, so I understand fully how it works. All of your comments were strawman or just pure ad hominem...

What is it about forums and the way they attract such self-righteous morons? Why can't someone just have a discussion without having a superiority complex?
 
I was not making reference that mining is the diver of price, it was just a turn of phrase that both the price and the hash rate are both going to the moon! 

No one has yet given an expliantion any how over 700kwh for a transaction is in any way justifiable???

So what happens in the future.....We just continue down this path until we need more hash power than there is available electricity in the world, sure exponential growth in price is exciting but exponential growth of energy use is not...

[buwaytress]

When you say efficient technology you're not talking about BTC right???

You didn't understand what I wrote? I talked about magnetic tape and paper records, not Bitcoin. And the topic is central bank mining... I'm saying if we want efficient tech adopters, banks won't be that.

The average energy consumption for one single Bitcoin transaction in 2020 was 741 kilowatt-hours.

That's pure insanity to me... People need to stop turning a blind eye to what we are doing here, this isn't efficient, it's insane!

People need to stop looking at this blindly, ignoring cost-benefit. That is insane, I agree, to accept banks are doing what they're doing and we can't get better.

[nullius]

Edit 2021-03-19 (original)

It has come to my attention that some people are confused by the below.

I am vaguely aware that there is a blockchain company named Paxos, founded in 2012.  I guess that it is probably named after Lamport’s Paxos protocol, which was named that in 1990 (paper published in 1998).  In the below post, I was referring to the work of Lamport, et al.

Not many forum users have the computer science or distributed systems expertise to understand what I said; and I don’t want inadvertently to mislead people.  My point was that before Satoshi, fault-tolerant distributed consensus in a trusted environment already had better solutions.  Satoshi invented something new:  Distributed consensus in an untrusted, anonymous, permissionless environment.  Whence mining.  Otherwise, mining is just a Rube Goldberg scheme to do orders of magnitude slower what Paxos already did almost two decades before Satoshi.

</edit>

I've been involved in BTC since early 2013,

Sure.  And I’m Satoshi Nakamoto.

so I understand fully how it works.

You have clearly demonstrated to the contrary.  Your posts essentially amount to a grab bag of common newbie misconceptions.

My kindliest suggestion to you:  Go to Beginners & Help, and start learning.  If you make an effort to ask smart questions and you are lucky, then someone with expertise may have the patience to explain to you the basic concept of Byzantine fault tolerance, the respective rôles of miners and non-mining validating nodes, and other key points that you have shown you do not understand.  If you are very lucky, then an expert in distributed systems architecture may explain to you in detail why Satoshi didn’t just use Paxos.

(If the nodes that create the ledger can be trusted to order transactions, then I myself could easily design a Paxos-style consensus protocol with results authenticated by digital signatures.  It would use no proof-of-work—no hashrate at all!  Zero electricity spent grinding hashes!  It would be orders of magnitude more efficient than your Rube Goldberg scheme; and if the transaction-ordering nodes can really be trusted, then it would be just as secure.  Whereas if they can’t be trusted, then your scheme is totally insecure.  My design would be fault tolerant, but not Byzantine fault tolerant; of course, since you lack knowledge of this subject domain, what I just said may as well have been in Greek.  “μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ...”)

If you want for me to tutor you, my current consulting rate for educating arrogant dolts is 0.00875 BTC/hour.  To be clear, that is a discount quote and a time-limited offer.

HTH, HAND.

[onisuk20]

You have clearly demonstrated to the contrary.  Your posts essentially amount to a grab bag of common newbie misconceptions.

My kindliest suggestion to you:  Go to Beginners & Help, and start learning.  If you make an effort to ask smart questions and you are lucky, then someone with expertise may have the patience to explain to you the basic concept of Byzantine fault tolerance, the respective rôles of miners and non-mining validating nodes, and other key points that you have shown you do not understand.  If you are very lucky, then an expert in distributed systems architecture may explain to you in detail why Satoshi didn’t just use Paxos.

(If the nodes that create the ledger can be trusted to order transactions, then I myself could easily design a Paxos-style consensus protocol with results authenticated by digital signatures.  It would use no proof-of-work—no hashrate at all!  Zero electricity spent grinding hashes!  It would be orders of magnitude more efficient than your Rube Goldberg scheme; and if the transaction-ordering nodes can really be trusted, then it would be just as secure.  Whereas if they can’t be trusted, then your scheme is totally insecure.  My design would be fault tolerant, but not Byzantine fault tolerant; of course, since you lack knowledge of this subject domain, what I just said may as well have been in Greek.  “μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ...”)

If you want for me to tutor you, my current consulting rate for educating arrogant dolts is 0.00875 BTC/hour.  To be clear, that is a discount quote and a time-limited offer.

HTH, HAND.

Why would you assume I need an arrogant cunt like you to teach me anything? You fking retarded child...

When you say efficient technology you're not talking about BTC right???

You didn't understand what I wrote? I talked about magnetic tape and paper records, not Bitcoin. And the topic is central bank mining... I'm saying if we want efficient tech adopters, banks won't be that.

The average energy consumption for one single Bitcoin transaction in 2020 was 741 kilowatt-hours.

That's pure insanity to me... People need to stop turning a blind eye to what we are doing here, this isn't efficient, it's insane!

People need to stop looking at this blindly, ignoring cost-benefit. That is insane, I agree, to accept banks are doing what they're doing and we can't get better.

Yeah, and where has that attitude got as a species....?

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

[d5000]

OP, what you search for already exists for several years, it is called "consortium blockchain".

There are dozens, if not hundreds of projects of this kind. So you can find the one fitting for you, fork it, offer the keys for the validator nodes to the Central Banks of the world. Then launch a marketing campaign - should be super easy, as it would be "the ultimative green alternative to Bitcoin" and don't bother with the "arrogant" folks here at Bitcointalk and their "strawman" and "ad hominem" argumentation anymore as they are surely at the "losers" side