Replacement for POW

[LoyceV]

The only way for a party to reduce the energy used in Bitcoin mining is by force, i.e. to take somebody machine's, impose taxes, make bitcoin illegal etc.

That won't matter on a global scale: if mining on location X becomes unprofitable, miners in other locations make more profit. That means they'll buy more gear, and all you've accomplished is that someone outside of country X now does the same mining.

[1714512862]

1714512862

[1714512862]

1714512862

[BlackHatCoiner]

Time is not inflation.

I'm not sure where does this respond to. Time isn't inflation, but arbitrarily altered monetary policy can lead to arbitrary inflation rate.

In fact coins are released slower with this method see other thread.

That is kinda my point. You introduce a change that alters monetary policy. I don't say that the change is bad or good for the most part. I'm just saying that your tendency for such change is bad, because bitcoin is an alternative to monetarism. People who're into bitcoin consider it superior money for mostly that part.

[hZti]

The only way for a party to reduce the energy used in Bitcoin mining is by force, i.e. to take somebody machine's, impose taxes, make bitcoin illegal etc.

That won't matter on a global scale: if mining on location X becomes unprofitable, miners in other locations make more profit. That means they'll buy more gear, and all you've accomplished is that someone outside of country X now does the same mining.

But where is the limit then. Is bitcoin doomed to use more and more energy every year forever? I dont think this is true, because maybe at some point we can not see higher hash rates, but higher efficiency. This will become more interesting as we approach more and more the end of block reward, and only see fees as block payments.

[BlackHatCoiner]

But where is the limit then. Is bitcoin doomed to use more and more energy every year forever?

No. LoyceV pointed out an important part of the ingeniousness of this innovation: if a country does nonsense, the rest have advantage. And even if that isn't considered nonsense for the elected party of the country, it doesn't have their desired outcome unless all elected parties (from all around the world) act likewise. Bitcoin mining is borderless. If you have power over certain people, you might limit their energy spending, but free market makes impossible to limit the total energy that's spent for Bitcoin mining.

As long as it's profitable to mine bitcoin, there will be mining, and the state cannot do a thing about it, because --unlike other products-- the cost to produce is likely to remain the same with state intervention.

[bkelly13]

Completely agree.  Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly.  It will take significant thought.

The only way for a party to reduce the energy used in Bitcoin mining is by force, i.e. to take somebody machine's, impose taxes, make bitcoin illegal etc. As a person involved into bitcoin, I'll have to reject this proposal, because every person has every right to do as they please with their energy.
...

I don't agree with that by force concept in the slightest.  No one's property need be taken.  It might be the case that all the mining hardware becomes useless, but that does not meet the concept expressed of "... by force,..."

[n0nce]

That means that the energy spent mining is wasted for all but one mining rig.  Again, the energy consumed by mining is quite significant.

What bitcoin offers is a lot more significant than the energy that is being consumed to provide that. It is not a small thing to offer a global censorship resistance payment system that works 24/7 with high security.

Completely agree.  Still, the amount of energy can be reduced significantly.  It will take significant thought.

Let's start from the beginning: Why do you believe the current amount of energy usage has to be reduced in the first place?

Most people bring up environmental impact; however that argument is nonexistent, since Bitcoin mining encourages using otherwise wasted energy, in locations where excess energy exists, as well as building new renewable energy plants, since that's the cheapest form of electricity. In my book, these are all great things and it may do more harm to the environment getting rid of PoW instead of keeping it.

Besides, the energy footprint of Bitcoin mining is miniscule on a global scale, and especially in relation to what it provides. Compare it to the energy footprint of a big fiat payment provider; where all the energy used doesn't even directly secure people's money. Double the energy use in Bitcoin makes Bitcoin twice as secure. More energy use by Paypal servers or banks, does not make those services more secure.

We could even come to the conclusion that Bitcoin is extremely energy efficient.

[Wind_FURY]

Create and maintain a list of all the bitcoin nodes that have been active for some period of time, maybe a year or some other time period.  Node owners must have a certain amount of time invested before becoming eligible for payments.   

Impossible to do in a decentralized way. For starters all the full nodes can not know about all other full nodes ever, they also can't continuously check whether all the candidates in that list are active at all times.

Most importantly how are you going to distinguish a fake full node with a real one? It is actually very easy to fake being a full node without actually running one. If you provide the incentive, the network could be flooded with them.

It's not just about running a "fake node". It could also be a user/group of users who are running multiple nodes and performing a Sybil Attack/51% Attack on the the network. It's easier to do at low cost, without POW to secure the network from such attacks.

I believe to learn more, Bitcoin.org's documentation is a good place to start, https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/block_chain.html

Plus replacing POW would be very stupid. Ethereum might learn from this, the hard way.

Shower thought. If Ethereum POS wouldn't be enough to secure the billions in their blockchain, and not enough to secure it as a global base layer for tokens, I believe they will probably need Bitcoin to secure their blockchain, and that probably creates more and more demand for Bitcoin transactions when block rewards become less and less after each halving.

[LoyceV]

maybe at some point we can not see higher hash rates, but higher efficiency.

Can you explain how this would work? Currently, miners earn about $15 million per day. If hardware gets more efficient, they'll buy more hardware. Satoshi's old computer could mine all Bitcoin blocks if he was the only one doing it.
Decentralisation makes Bitcoin mining the ultimate free market: anyone who can make a profit can join.

[pooya87]

Plus replacing POW would be very stupid. Ethereum might learn from this, the hard way.

Shower thought. If Ethereum POS wouldn't be enough to secure the billions in their blockchain, and not enough to secure it as a global base layer for tokens, I believe they will probably need Bitcoin to secure their blockchain, and that probably creates more and more demand for Bitcoin transactions when block rewards become less and less after each halving.

When you analyze an altcoin like Ethereum you should have one eye on all of its aspects instead of just focusing on the algorithm that changed from PoW to PoS. In this case the most important attribute to consider is Ethereum's centralization. That has helped this shitcoin survive a lot of things and the only reason why they switched to PoS and has been able to keep this mutable blockchain alive is because it is centralized and they have a lot of control on it.
In other words if a decentralized coin does the same, the effects won't be the same at all.

[Wind_FURY]

Plus replacing POW would be very stupid. Ethereum might learn from this, the hard way.

Shower thought. If Ethereum POS wouldn't be enough to secure the billions in their blockchain, and not enough to secure it as a global base layer for tokens, I believe they will probably need Bitcoin to secure their blockchain, and that probably creates more and more demand for Bitcoin transactions when block rewards become less and less after each halving.

When you analyze an altcoin like Ethereum you should have one eye on all of its aspects instead of just focusing on the algorithm that changed from PoW to PoS. In this case the most important attribute to consider is Ethereum's centralization. That has helped this shitcoin survive a lot of things and the only reason why they switched to PoS and has been able to keep this mutable blockchain alive is because it is centralized and they have a lot of control on it.
In other words if a decentralized coin does the same, the effects won't be the same at all.

You're right! Haha.

I believe Vitalik Buterin is starting to pivot when he posted this tweet.

People continue to underrate how often cryptocurrency payments are superior not even because of censorship resistance but just because they're so much more convenient.

Big boost to international business and charity, and sometimes even payments within countries.

https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1562542183562878976

I don't know why there are many people who remain to follow that charlatan.

But because Ethereum is centralized doesn't actually suggest that the billions of value in that blockchain is safe/secure. Every pleb knows, centralized = single point of failure. A government-entity can attack it. If there's a probability that Ethereum's POS, consensus through committee, is not enough to secure it, how high is the probability that it will need Bitcoin POW to secure it?

[pooya87]

I don't know why there are many people who remain to follow that charlatan.

One word: profit.

Although it is a little more complicated than that. It is one of humanity's traits that they don't want to accept they were wrong.
Nobody can deny the big pumps that ethereum had in the past which has given a lot of profit to many people and worst of all has given hope of future profits to a lot more who are now bag holders. They do not want to accept that they were wrong about this whole thing being a sham even though ETH has gotten dumped so much in the past 5 years without being capable of seeing its ATH against bitcoin ever again.

[Wind_FURY]

I don't know why there are many people who remain to follow that charlatan.

One word: profit.

Although it is a little more complicated than that. It is one of humanity's traits that they don't want to accept they were wrong.

Nobody can deny the big pumps that ethereum had in the past which has given a lot of profit to many people and worst of all has given hope of future profits to a lot more who are now bag holders. They do not want to accept that they were wrong about this whole thing being a sham even though ETH has gotten dumped so much in the past 5 years without being capable of seeing its ATH against bitcoin ever again.

We also don't know why, like OP, many people also remain to look for a "Replacement for POW". Bitcoin is proven hard money because it set, and made sure that no entity can "print"/issue the money of the system for free. But because Ethereum developers threw away POW, the most important part of their network, they might have broken they're incentive structure by allowing their network to print money for free. I truly thought Ethereum would also be a multi-generational blockchain before the transition to POS.

[LegendaryK]

Interesting how two btc supporters are only able to talk about ethereum.

Maybe start a new topic and quit derailing this one.

Topic is Replacement for POW in BTC.

Try and focus.

[NotATether]

Interesting how two btc supporters are only able to talk about ethereum.

Maybe start a new topic and quit derailing this one.

Topic is Replacement for POW in BTC.

Try and focus.

I am still waiting for frozen(TM) European countries to ban Proof of Work mining, by the way.

[LegendaryK]

I am still waiting for frozen(TM) European countries to ban Proof of Work mining, by the way.

You also still experience Energy Blackouts on a daily basis in your country.
So how many bitcoins do you mine per year?   None.  
* When the prime supporters of a product , can't afford to actually mine it, proves you have no decentralization.*
* Currently only 3 mining pool operators control over 51% of btc PoW hashrate daily. *

Since you mention Europe, they are starting a carbon tax.
Since according to BTC supporters their is not yet a viable replacement to PoW.  (Everyone one else just evolves to PoS)

How long before they place that carbon tax on btc transactions in Europe BTC exchanges.
This could end all PoW mining in Europe, and cause all Europe Exchange to drop all PoW coins to avoid the added carbon taxes.

BTC needs an energy efficient alternative to current PoW, if it wants to be taken seriously.
Also any new alternative needs to be able to survive with none or extremely low onchain transaction fees.
The reason btc is failing in El Salvador, is the average daily wage is ~$13 US, so a $1.82 transaction fee eats up 14% of a day wages.
In the US , it would be like someone earning $200 US daily would have to spend $28 as a transaction fee, no one is stupid enough to waste 14% of their daily wages on transaction fee, when cash has a 0% transaction fee. Now you know why bitcoin PoW will fail at adoption in poor countries.
So transaction fees also need to be fixed in any PoW alternative.

[n0nce]

I am still waiting for frozen(TM) European countries to ban Proof of Work mining, by the way.

You also still experience Energy Blackouts on a daily basis in your country.

Who are you referring to and how do you know which country they live in? And how do you get from 'there are energy blackouts' to 'we have to stop PoW' and not 'we have to build better infrastructure'?
To my knowledge, societies fared much better if they improved infrastructure to meet new demands instead of reducing demands to meet old infrastructure.

Imagine: the industrial revolution is starting, and countries refuse to build railroad infrastructure. They instead reduce demands and production to be able to handle it with horse-drawn carriages and such antiquated means of transport. Such a country would have failed completely, economically speaking, and have been crushed by all the other countries, which all adapted to new demand.

So how many bitcoins do you mine per year?  None.    
* When the prime supporters of a product , can't afford to actually mine it, proves you have no decentralization.*

Again: who are you referring to? Some people in these threads mine at home, some rent hashrate and some don't mine. You can't give such broad, generalized statements and expect to be taken seriously, because generalized statements are always wrong. There is always at least one exception, automatically destroying arguments like 'no Bitcoin supporter mines'.

* Currently only 3 mining pool operators control over 51% of btc PoW hashrate daily. *

Even if that were the case, it doesn't mean that there are only 3 miners. We explained this to you multiple times. A pool could theoretically consist of thousands of individual Bitcointalk home miners and achieve 1/3 of global hashrate. That would be the complete opposite of 'centralization' that you seem to suggest.

Since you mention Europe, they are starting a carbon tax.
Since according to BTC supporters their is not yet a viable replacement to PoW.  (Everyone one else just evolves to PoS)

Cool; so facilitating mining in Europe would increase the demand for carbon-free electricity, flooding more money into the carbon-free electricity business, allowing the field to evolve faster, carbon-free energy to become more popular, cheaper and more stable. Net profit for everyone.
Bitcoin mining would massively help the transition to 100% renewable electricity. Change my mind.

'Switching to PoS' is because of 3 reasons:
(1) Bigger profits for project creators (main reason): basically the equivalent to giving satoshi a huge ASIC mining installation for free, and updating it (for free) every year to the latest gear, with free electricity, forever. ^{[that would be hilarious, right]}
(2) Easy to sell to gullible newbies who've already been half-brainwashed by PoW FUD (e.g. from Greenpeace)
(3) Don't have to compete with Bitcoin, just with the other shitcoins.

BTC needs an energy efficient alternative to current PoW, if it wants to be taken seriously.

Are you aware that Bitcoin mining is the least of your worries if you believe energy usage is too high? Look around you; wasted energy everywhere. Focus on the important stuff, don't let FUDsters distract you from the bigger picture.
Bitcoin is a smaaaall fish my dude.

[LegendaryK]

I am still waiting for frozen(TM) European countries to ban Proof of Work mining, by the way.

You also still experience Energy Blackouts on a daily basis in your country.

Who are you referring to and how do you know which country they live in?

Because he told me.  

So how many bitcoins do you mine per year?   None.  
* When the prime supporters of a product , can't afford to actually mine it, proves you have no decentralization.*

Again: who are you referring to?

I was referring to the person (NotATether), I was talking too.
Did you forget your meds today, as you are slower than normal.

* Currently only 3 mining pool operators control over 51% of btc PoW hashrate daily. *

Even if that were the case, it doesn't mean that there are only 3 miners.

But it does mean only 3 people are securing the network, or don't you know how pools work.
The dangers of pooling :
https://modernconsensus.com/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin/report-mining-pool-consolidation-threatens-bitcoin-security/

mining pools now control half of Bitcoin’s hashrate, making 51% attacks a growing concern
Bitcoin’s “trustless network” continues to erode as mining power concentrates into the hands of a few.

Since you mention Europe, they are starting a carbon tax.
Since according to BTC supporters their is not yet a viable replacement to PoW.  (Everyone one else just evolves to PoS)

Cool; so facilitating mining in Europe would increase the demand for carbon-free electricity, flooding more money into the carbon-free electricity business, allowing the field to evolve faster, carbon-free energy to become more popular, cheaper and more stable. Net profit for everyone.
Bitcoin mining would massively help the transition to 100% renewable electricity. Change my mind.

And here is where you prove you don't understand energy infrastructure.
The real reason Europe is short on energy now is trying to move to carbon free energy,
Carbon Free Energy like solar, wind, & hydro are proving to be unreliable for 24x7 baseload needs.
Nuclear Fusion is 50 to 70 years away from commercial utility.
No one needs to change your mind, you can be clueless forever and it won't change the inevitable outcome.

BTC needs an energy efficient alternative to current PoW, if it wants to be taken seriously.

Are you aware that Bitcoin mining is the least of your worries if you believe energy usage is too high? Look around you; wasted energy everywhere. Focus on the important stuff, don't let FUDsters distract you from the bigger picture.
Bitcoin is a smaaaall fish my dude.

The Reason China banned PoW, is that while BTC may only use a small % of the entire world energy.
No single grid has access to all the world energy, and your miners for greed's sake like to suck up as much as possible in as few locations as possible.
So when they all move to Texas , they cause grid instability , which causes blackouts, until the miners are banned.
You don't have to believe any of it, the PoW bans are coming whether you grasp it or not.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rosemariemiller/2022/12/07/crypto-mining-ban-makes-new-york-potential-model-for-other-states/?sh=4e47794940e1

New York’s two-year ban on new proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining
Potential Model For Other States
Canada’s Manitoba province set an 18-month moratorium on new crypto-mining operations last month

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/white-house-condemns-energy-use-of-mining-bitcoin

The Office of Science and Technology asserts that bitcoin mining facilities create added stress on the power grid that leads to blackouts, fire hazards, and equipment deterioration. The report also claims that bitcoin miners will raise the average electricity cost for local consumers.
“eliminate” proof-of-work mining.

[pooya87]

Interesting how two btc supporters are only able to talk about ethereum.
Maybe start a new topic and quit derailing this one.
Topic is Replacement for POW in BTC.
Try and focus.

Altcoins have always been an experimentation ground for bitcoin. A shitcoin that has copied majority of its protocol from bitcoin changed part of it to a different algorithm. It is a valid discussion to talk about that change.

You also still experience Energy Blackouts on a daily basis in your country.

You still haven't learned that bitcoin is not for one or two countries or a region. It is a global currency and for every country that has some issues or bans bitcoin there are dozens that don't.
For example we have no blackouts here and the electricity price is about $0.002 per KWH. Geographically speaking most EU countries are only as big as one of our average size cities and the whole country is as big as more than half of Europe combined. So even if half of EU were dark (which it isn't since there are only small number of blackouts) it is negated by one country alone. There are a lot of other cases like this.

How long before they place that carbon tax on btc transactions in Europe BTC exchanges.

Bitcoin "transactions" don't go through exchanges. Bitcoin trades to! There is already a hefty tax on trades which has nothing to do with mining algorithm of the coins.

BTC needs an energy efficient alternative to current PoW, if it wants to be taken seriously.

Bitcoin's Proof of Work is the most energy efficient algorithm that exists and it is taken seriously which is evident from the adoption around the world with multiple countries adopting it as legal tender, more as legal currency and the billions of dollars of businesses that are built on top of bitcoin and millions of dollars that is transferred using bitcoin on daily basis.

a $1.82 transaction fee eats up 14% of a day wages.

This is why a centralized shitcoin like ETH that is using PoS and has fees that are above $5 is not useful while bitcoin that has a transaction fee of less than $0.10 is.

[LegendaryK]

a $1.82 transaction fee eats up 14% of a day wages.

This is why a centralized shitcoin like ETH that is using PoS and has fees that are above $5 is not useful while bitcoin that has a transaction fee of less than $0.10 is.

How do you stay so clueless?
Ethereum current transaction fee is 63 cents ~ ½ of the current btc fee, according to Ycharts.  
Also while ethereum processes ~4x the transaction volume of btc on a daily basis.  

But even that is still to high for mass adoption in Poor Countries,
using a Proof of Stake design opens the potential to remove or reduce transaction fees in a PoS network to 1 penny or less,
Plus in a PoS design anyone can stake to cover the fees. 
Proof of Waste Bitcoin network can never achieve transaction fees that is needed for mass adoption due to it's inferior design.
Bitcoin PoW miners are going bankrupt all over the place right now, because of PoW defective design.
Anyone on a grid where a btc miners goes bankrupt sees an increase in their energy bills to cover the electric utility losses to the asshat btc miners.

https://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/energy_bomb_bitcoin_white_paper_101322.pdf

[tromp]

while bitcoin that has a transaction fee of less than $0.10 is.

Bitcoin, by design of its disappearing block subsidy, will eventually require WAY higher fees than that in order to remain the least bit secure.

So long term, low bitcoin fees are just wishful thinking. It was not designed for that.