Sustainable PoW

[philipma1957]

Yes, it might not change the dynamics of PoW much. An active miner won’t feel any difference, but someone who has stopped mining will continue to have their "share of the network."

The idea is that if each miner has already proven they own 10% of the network, why keep proving it?

For random selection, I thought of simply using the last hash of the mined block as the random value.

However, this wouldn’t significantly reduce energy consumption.

gold is like that.
Once it is
dug up.
smelted.
shaped.

It does not need mining anymore.

The idea mined BTC is independent from new mining is interesting.

But it does not have a lot of accepetance.
It could work with the correct pitch or there could be a shift to scrypt because doge never runs out of a 10,000 coin reward yet has endless reduction in yearly inflationary  rate of new coins.

By 2113 around year 100 for doge the inflation rate is only 1 percent.

[tromp]

there could be a shift to scrypt

Scrypt makes for a bad PoW. It utterly failed at being ASIC resistant but still requires lots of complex computations and nontrivial amounts of memory just to verify. Even if you wanted ASICs using significant amounts of SRAM (because memory circuits don't shrink as well as computational ones, and thus can be built on less than bleeding edge nodes), there are much simpler SRAM oriented PoW which can be instantly verified without memory.

By 2113 around year 100 for doge the inflation rate is only 1 percent.

That would be the case for if doge had a completely fair fixed reward since launch, but instead the first year featured 20x higher rewards. That means that (besides creating unnecessary concentration of wealth), its soft supply [1] is reached 20 years sooner, in about 2093.

[1] https://john-tromp.medium.com/a-case-for-using-soft-total-supply-1169a188d153

[ABCbits]

Yes, it might not change the dynamics of PoW much. An active miner won’t feel any difference, but someone who has stopped mining will continue to have their "share of the network."

I think you mean "share" to produce new blocks without currently owning ASIC and using electricity,

The idea is that if each miner has already proven they own 10% of the network, why keep proving it?

The only thing they can prove is they used to mine certain blocks in past. And amount of blocks they've mined shouldn't determine ownership of the Bitcoin network.

[stompix]

How many times do we have to debate this kind of energy reduction schemes?

It's pretty simple and basic economics:
- revenue is 30 million per day means that miners will not be able to spend more than 30 million on energy to mine blocks
- you change so that only half of the blocks will be mined via Asics during the day, it doesn't change the revenue balance
- miners will simply mine half of the day with twice as much gear since revenue per kWh consumed will double

It's the same with more efficient miners, release a miner that is 10 times more efficient than a s21, and the energy spent will not drop by 10, it will keep constant, and the only thing changing will be the hashrate increase by 10x.