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

[onisuk20]

I have been thinking and reading a lot about the amount of power the BTC network consumes via PoW, I know it's a highly contested subject with pros and cons both ways. I know a fair amount already comes from renewables but even if it was 100% from renewables why waste so much energy? (not that securing a global database is a true waste)

But as a BTC holder and end-user, there is a part of me that thinks that this path of ever-increasing power and thus difficulty isn't a sustainable/healthy one.

My only solution was to reduce the number of mining operations, this would reduce the difficulty and power used.

So how do we decide who gets to mine? Well, there would be no clear solution to that, so my proposition would be that only a central authority such as a county's central bank would be allowed. This would reduce mining operations to only a few hundred, and would greatly reduce the amount of power required.

Personally, I would have no issue with allowing the state to validate the blockchain. They wouldn't have any control over the coin's supply, no one nation would have the ability to collude, that can be seen in how we conduct global politics, we can never agree on the most basic matters! Let alone a 51% attack.

This would change the system to be somewhat like, dare I say the word, Ripple, with its list of approved validators. Each country would run a mining operation with limited size and capacity to cap global energy use.

The result, a truly global monetary system that no one state is in control of, free from the ravages of inflation and bad actors......?!

[20kevin20]

Bitcoin was invented to avoid centralization. This includes banks and governments. If Bitcoin's mining power is concentrated in the hands of the Elites, what happens is we only create a digital version of fiat that is controllable by them and even worse than cash.

PoW works wonderfully with decentralized mining. Don't let your mindset be changed by the fact that Bitcoin consumes power. The enslavement system we are currently living in is using a ton of resources yet those same people complaining about BTC's mining power don't complain about the system and how awful it is.

We're going to go "eco-friendly" soon. That means we will use more electricity than ever before. I don't see the usage of energy as a "waste". Decentralization is not a waste, and this is the price we currently have to pay for it.

[mk4]

Bitcoin, a decentralized system to designed to decrease the power of governments and states as a whole. And now you're proposing that only a central authority is allowed to mine? You do realize that it completely defeats the purpose right?

[onisuk20]

No, it doesn't defeat the purpose at all, they would have no control over the currency, no ability to inflate it or change it in any way, because they are a single actor in the system.

How does a global network of trusted validators somehow make us worse off?

You both need to provide evidence for your statements instead of just spewing maximalist ideals!!!

How is the network being validated by over 200 CBs in some way inferior to having most of the work being done in China or the US....which is currently happening! 

[onisuk20]

Bitcoin was invented to avoid centralization.

Which it's massively failing at!

https://framingbitcoin.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Global-Bitcoin-Mining-Map-shows-Hashrate-distribution-by-country-bar-1024x580.jpg

[avikz]

So how do we decide who gets to mine? Well, there would be no clear solution to that, so my proposition would be that only a central authority such as a county's central bank would be allowed. This would reduce mining operations to only a few hundred, and would greatly reduce the amount of power required.

Personally, I would have no issue with allowing the state to validate the blockchain. They wouldn't have any control over the coin's supply, no one nation would have the ability to collude, that can be seen in how we conduct global politics, we can never agree on the most basic matters! Let alone a 51% attack.

Lol! What you are proposing is exactly opposite than the idea of decentralization and bitcoin. Bitcoin is popular because no state or country control this currency system and are completely independent from centralized entities. So I don't see how your proposal can be a solution!

The only solution here is to encourage and facilitate renewable energy usage rather than centralization of the network and giving it away to the central banks!

[onisuk20]

Did you even read the other posts?

How exactly is having over 50% of the mining power in one country in any way "decentralised"?

How is the government mining and validating blocks in away way giving them any control???

[amishmanish]

If the Bitcoin ideals gets adopted by governments, it may well be a solution to have all autonomus central banks running Bitcoin miners as the base infrastructure for the world's reserve currency. Normal people could just be running Full Nodes and the development should be community driven plus open-source as it has always been. In a perfect scenario, this would not be a bad solution.

Unfortunately, that is not how governments work or have ever worked. Do you think that governments can actually give power to the people and simply do the job entrusted to them by the taxpayers? At the end of the day, governments are made up of people and public servants who enjoy the perks and privileges of their positions.

Hoping that they would serve the role of benign gatekeepers without trying to grab all that power for themselves is like giving Lady Galadriel the ring. The Elven matriarch knew that she wasn't immune from the allure of the ring's power and refused when offered by Frodo.

Pardon the LOTR references, but you are literally talking about offering the ring to Sauron himself.

[onisuk20]

Yes that how I see it, it would be no different to today and would in fact be more decentralised than what we currently have with basically only 2 countries doing all the mining!

Surely that's the idea of BTC is that it's trustless!

Currently, I don't have to trust the Chinese or Russian miners who validate my transactions, the software keeps them in check. I'm sure if I were given a choice where my tx was validated I wouldn't have those people/countries do it!   

At the end of the day, I would likely trust a central bank way more than some sketchy operation in the arse end of China, but it doesn't matter with BTC where or who does the mining. So what's the harm in letting only Central banks do the work needed to secure the network?

It would remain opensource and controlled by the people....

I can't see any downsides to what I have suggested!?

[amishmanish]

--snip--
Currently, I don't have to trust the Chinese or Russian miners who validate my transactions, the software keeps them in check. I'm sure if I were given a choice where my tx was validated I wouldn't have those people/countries do it!   

At the end of the day, I would likely trust a central bank way more than some sketchy operation in the arse end of China, but it doesn't matter with BTC where or who does the mining. So what's the harm in letting only Central banks do the work needed to secure the network?

It would remain opensource and controlled by the people....

I can't see any downsides to what I have suggested!?

I share your sentiment about mining not really being as decentralized as some would want it to be. It needs a large investment and the people who afforded it are now big players themselves.

Even then, what you have to understand that those are essentially individuals or privately-owned entities that do not have to justify their actions for political motives. When it comes to governments, it is exclusively about gaining political mileage. They can go to any extent for that and also have the wherewithal to do what they want. Bitcoin as a philosophy tells the common man that "Here is your money, keep it safe and no institution or government, no matter how powerful, will part this from you".

That is empowering and something that we have never had. This is really an answer to all the faults of democracies. Giving common people the freedom to hold money which cannot be hurt by stupid governments. When it comes to governments, or anybody in power, they have almost always fucked up things that require agreements. Conflict resolution isn't really a forte of governments. They dilly-dally over issues for political reasons and use all kind of machinations to ensure that their side wins.

Due to these reasons, it isn't really a good idea to have Bitcoin be controlled by a set of permissioned entities, no matter who they are or how many of them there are. This is also the reason that DPoS and PoS based chains cannot be trusted with foundational value. That is why we must have Bitcoin and the ability to be mined by anyone anywhere, no matter how small.

[maye5104]

Bitcoin was invented to avoid centralization. Are you going to make it centralized? Sounds ironically.

[onisuk20]

Bitcoin was invented to avoid centralization. Are you going to make it centralized? Sounds ironically.

Are you blind? or just not able/willing to read.....?

[onisuk20]

--snip--
Currently, I don't have to trust the Chinese or Russian miners who validate my transactions, the software keeps them in check. I'm sure if I were given a choice where my tx was validated I wouldn't have those people/countries do it!   

At the end of the day, I would likely trust a central bank way more than some sketchy operation in the arse end of China, but it doesn't matter with BTC where or who does the mining. So what's the harm in letting only Central banks do the work needed to secure the network?

It would remain opensource and controlled by the people....

I can't see any downsides to what I have suggested!?

I share your sentiment about mining not really being as decentralized as some would want it to be. It needs a large investment and the people who afforded it are now big players themselves.

Even then, what you have to understand that those are essentially individuals or privately-owned entities that do not have to justify their actions for political motives. When it comes to governments, it is exclusively about gaining political mileage. They can go to any extent for that and also have the wherewithal to do what they want. Bitcoin as a philosophy tells the common man that "Here is your money, keep it safe and no institution or government, no matter how powerful, will part this from you".

That is empowering and something that we have never had. This is really an answer to all the faults of democracies. Giving common people the freedom to hold money which cannot be hurt by stupid governments. When it comes to governments, or anybody in power, they have almost always fucked up things that require agreements. Conflict resolution isn't really a forte of governments. They dilly-dally over issues for political reasons and use all kind of machinations to ensure that their side wins.

Thats why I chose the CBs because generally speaking...

Central banks are inherently non-market-based or even anti-competitive institutions. Although some are nationalized, many central banks are not government agencies, and so are often touted as being politically independent. However, even if a central bank is not legally owned by the government, its privileges are established and protected by law.

Most, if not all CBs in the west do not answer to the .GOV, they are free to act as they see fit free from political involvement.

Due to these reasons, it isn't really a good idea to have Bitcoin be controlled by a set of permissioned entities, no matter who they are or how many of them there are.

How is mining the chain "giving them control"

by this same logic, we are now allowing China to control BTC........?

[20kevin20]

Which it's massively failing at!

It's such a big failure we have never had successful 51% attacks. One country having a large % of the global hashrate power doesn't mean China is controlling BTC. It's not just 1 miner doing this. It's lots of farms doing so.

And then, remember any attempt of an attack against us will be counter-attacked by the devs with properly implemented "antidotes". Bitcoin is about being open-source and decentralized. What centralizing it does.. is it makes Bitcoin completely useless, just like all the other shitcoins we have around.

[Lucius]

No, it doesn't defeat the purpose at all, they would have no control over the currency, no ability to inflate it or change it in any way, because they are a single actor in the system.

How is the network being validated by over 200 CBs in some way inferior to having most of the work being done in China or the US....which is currently happening! 

You must live under a glass bell where everything is ideal, there are no bribes, corruption, crime and bad intentions. Do you really think that central banks would play by the rules, who would set those rules at all, maybe you?

The belief that CBs would play fair and not change anything is naive to say the least, because it's like saying that all the world's major powers don't cooperate on key issues - and that their influence doesn't influence others to play by the rules they set.

If BTC mining were to be managed by the central banks of countries that are members of the G20, for example - how long do you think it would take them to agree on some changes that they could definitely implement given that they control the network? You live in total delusion if you think that there is no difference between the network being controlled by those who just want to make a profit and those who are interested in some completely different things, because they have as much money as they want anyway.

[onisuk20]

You must live under a glass bell where everything is ideal, there are no bribes, corruption, crime and bad intentions. Do you really think that central banks would play by the rules, who would set those rules at all, maybe you?

The belief that CBs would play fair and not change anything is naive to say the least, because it's like saying that all the world's major powers don't cooperate on key issues - and that their influence doesn't influence others to play by the rules they set.

If BTC mining were to be managed by the central banks of countries that are members of the G20, for example - how long do you think it would take them to agree on some changes that they could definitely implement given that they control the network? You live in total delusion if you think that there is no difference between the network being controlled by those who just want to make a profit and those who are interested in some completely different things, because they have as much money as they want anyway.

The G20 can hardly agree on anything and as the name suggest, only a block of 20 countries, nowhere near what would be required to change something in the core code.

So it's ok to have most of the mining activity in one country that we in the west we don't trust.....?

How is that ANY different from having a mining operation in every single country..........? its really not, in fact it's better. It would be like the UN for money.

So you agree that all all the mining being in China does not allow them to control BTC, so how EXACTLY would all the mining being done by CBs give them any control?


IT WOULDNT ITS THE SAME FKING THING!!!!!!!!!!!!

[onisuk20]

You must live under a glass bell where everything is ideal, there are no bribes, corruption, crime and bad intentions. Do you really think that central banks would play by the rules, who would set those rules at all, maybe you?

WTF are you talking about? The system is exactly the same as we have now........the same code, the rules are already set!!! Those very same rules that stop the Russians and Chinese from colluding right now!!!!!!!!

[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?

My second question is... How does your idea solve anything? It's still an arms race.  Each central bank will want to have MORE hash power than the other countries. This will both bring in more revenue (to offset their mining costs) AND will ensure that the enemy countries can't collude to attack transactions from allies.  As such, total amount of equipment and electricity will continue to increase.  Only now, instead of the amount of mining being self-regulated by profitability, these countries can tax their citizens and engage in mining at a loss to increase their total influence.  The will result in even MORE electricity being used than the current system.

[onisuk20]

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?

My second question is... How does your idea solve anything? It's still an arms race.  Each central bank will want to have MORE hash power than the other countries. This will both bring in more revenue (to offset their mining costs) AND will ensure that the enemy countries can't collude to attack transactions from allies.  As such, total amount of equipment and electricity will continue to increase.  Only now, instead of the amount of mining being self-regulated by profitability, these countries can tax their citizens and engage in mining at a loss to increase their total influence.  The will result in even MORE electricity being used than the current system.

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...

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!

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.

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

Any future mined coins would have to be staked like ETH2.0 and any attempt at a bad acting would result in the CB deposit getting burned.

[buwaytress]

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.