Bitcoin Forum
July 27, 2026, 09:12:52 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 31.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Introduction of Proof of Idle to reduce carbon footprint - reupload  (Read 199 times)
3fxmj (OP)
Copper Member
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 2
Merit: 0


View Profile
December 10, 2024, 10:08:19 PM
 #1

Hello,

To our considerable surprise, our post from last week has been removed without notice. We really appreciate the open and insightful discussions on this forum and would like to bring the idea back for further exploration. We are aware that we introduce a very complex technical topic - it therefore may require some serious thinking to access this potential route to a sustainalble mining process.

We are naturally fully aware of the core principles of bitcoin, especially the importance of maintaining decentralization. Hardware limitations are not a good direction, we also feel they can potentially be removed or circumvented. Auditing is not attractive too, as it reduces the level of decentralization.

Our goal with this technical post is a discussion to explore potential ways to serisously reduce the carbon emissions associated with bitcoin mining. This is a growing concern for both investors and lawmakers. One potential solution we're considering is the concept of Proof of Idle, which could offer a way to mitigate bitcoin's environmental impact. If bitcoin can essentially demonstrate to be of solar energy origin, its reputation will greatly profit and a key point of critics can be removed.

Please note, this is just the beginning of a thought process, and we'd love to hear your thoughts on the pros and cons of this approach in general. How could idling be technically implemented in a way that preserves the decentralization of the network? What other principles or mechanisms might be viable to achieve the goal of decarbonization without compromising the core values of bitcoin?



# Introduction of Proof of Idle to reduce the carbon footprint of Proof of Work-based cryptocurrencies.

## Introduction

Global warming is one of the key issues facing humanity in the 21st century. Research has shown that 67% of the electricity used for bitcoin mining in 2020-2021 came from fossil fuels. [1]
Bitcoin's contribution to global warming has provoked regulatory action and may keep ecologically focused investors and contributors out of the ecosystem.
That's why the idea of a Proof of Idle mechanism is introduced, where Bitcoin miners limit their active mining time to use the curtailed energy produced by renewable energy sources when it cannot be used or stored and would otherwise be lost.

## Proof of Idle

Reducing the carbon footprint of proof-of-work (PoW)-based cryptocurrencies can be achieved by time-limiting the mining process to use a higher proportion of curtailed electricity to mine cryptocurrencies.
Leveraging the correlation between curtailed electricity and photovoltaic (PV) power production profiles, bitcoin miners, who work for certain hours each day and must remain idle the rest of the time, can effectively reduce their carbon footprint by scheduling mining activities during periods of surplus renewable energy; furthermore, this scheduling is also incentivised by potentially cheaper energy prices for curtailed electricity.

## Implementation

In an implementation of the protocol, it is sufficient to limit the active time/day and let the miner decide when the best active time is, as it would be economically most attractive to mine when curtailed power is used.
Furthermore, proof of idle can be introduced as an enhancement to an existing PoW cryptocurrency, without changing its foundation behavior, by marking transactions as green transactions that are in a block mined by a miner that follows the idle criteria.
There are several ideas for the mechanism to verify a miner's idle time.
Conceivable is to integrate a Truste Execution Environment (TEE) into the ASIC chips used in the mining process. The TEE then maintains an idle log based on hardware parameters such as power consumption and hardware temperature. The TEE also timestamps and verifies the log and securely signs and transmits it to the blockchain, either at regular intervals or upon verification requests from the verifier. Regular hardware reviews and audits could enhance the system's resilience against tampering and ensure the integrity of idle proofs. Other implementations using network analysis or even physical inspection are also conceivable. Verification of green transactions does not have to be immediate and can be approved with some delay.

## Implication on resilience

A critical consideration for this system is the resilience to 51% attacks. To achieve the same level of resilience in a system that fully implements Proof of Idle, more hardware is required. The cost of this increased hardware requirement can be offset by a higher purchase price for green-verified crypto-tokens than for conventional ones.
Another effect is helping to improve the resilience: By using curtailed electricity which is available at a lower price it is financially lucrative to use hardware for a longer period, which is diminishing the mining equipment acquisition cost, and thus improves the resilience of the system. This further improves the overall ecological footprint as less new machines must be produced.
Another consideration is that curtailed power will not be available in the same way all over the world. Therefore, there is a certain risk that political policies in these countries could affect the stability of the blockchain. It is important to note that a similar risk also exists in classical PoW blockchains. In the bitcoin example, only 3 countries are responsible for over 70% of today's hash rate[2].

## References

[1] Chamanara, S. & Madani, K. (2023). The hidden environmental costs of cryptocurrency: How Bitcoin Mining Impacts Climate, Water and Land, United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, https://inweh.unu.edu/
[2] Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. (n.d.). Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI): Mining map. https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/mining_map
ABCbits
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 3682
Merit: 10221



View Profile
December 11, 2024, 09:51:08 AM
 #2

It's weird your thread got deleted. Anyway, i'm here to re-ask these question.

Conceivable is to integrate a Truste Execution Environment (TEE) into the ASIC chips used in the mining process. The TEE then maintains an idle log based on hardware parameters such as power consumption and hardware temperature. The TEE also timestamps and verifies the log and securely signs and transmits it to the blockchain, either at regular intervals or upon verification requests from the verifier.

1. What stops ASIC manufacture to make fake/malicious TEE which send manipulated data to maximize miners income?
2. How Bitcoin full nodes can verify the data comes from TEE without any tampering?

Regular hardware reviews and audits could enhance the system's resilience against tampering and ensure the integrity of idle proofs. Other implementations using network analysis or even physical inspection are also conceivable. Verification of green transactions does not have to be immediate and can be approved with some delay.

Without oracle or 3rd party, how Bitcoin full nodes can verify the audit is being done truthfully and competently?

███████████████████████████
███████▄████████████▄██████
████████▄████████▄████████
███▀█████▀▄███▄▀█████▀███
█████▀█▀▄██▀▀▀██▄▀█▀█████
███████▄███████████▄███████
███████████████████████████
███████▀███████████▀███████
████▄██▄▀██▄▄▄██▀▄██▄████
████▄████▄▀███▀▄████▄████
██▄███▀▀█▀██████▀█▀███▄███
██▀█▀████████████████▀█▀███
███████████████████████████
.
.Duelbits PREDICT..
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████▀▀░░░░▀▀██████
██████████░░▄████▄░░████
█████████░░████████░░████
█████████░░████████░░████
█████████▄▀██████▀▄████
████████▀▀░░░▀▀▀▀░░▄█████
██████▀░░░░██▄▄▄▄████████
████▀░░░░▄███████████████
█████▄▄█████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
.
.WHERE EVERYTHING IS A MARKET..
█████
██
██







██
██
██████
Will Bitcoin hit $200,000
before January 1st 2027?

    No @1.15         Yes @6.00    
█████
██
██







██
██
██████

  CHECK MORE > 
stwenhao
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Activity: 715
Merit: 1928


View Profile
December 11, 2024, 11:08:16 AM
Merited by vapourminer (4), ABCbits (1)
 #3

Quote
Conceivable is to integrate a Truste Execution Environment (TEE) into the ASIC chips used in the mining process.
If you introduce any limits into the hardware, then people will unlock it anyway. Or: they will use older hardware instead. For example: if UEFI wouldn't be so restrictive, then FSF wouldn't be forced to run their software on Thinkpads from 2008 (to make sure, that Intel Management Engine is not there).

Quote
The cost of this increased hardware requirement can be offset by a higher purchase price for green-verified crypto-tokens than for conventional ones.
The verifier could then easily manipulate the market, by creating some useless altcoin, and signing it. Also note, that signet is "green-verified", because all blocks are signed, but this coin is worthless.

Proof of Work puzzle in mainnet, testnet4 and signet.
tiltedIceCream
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 8
Merit: 21


View Profile
December 11, 2024, 11:55:07 AM
Merited by vapourminer (2), ABCbits (1)
 #4

The data sources used to inspire this proposal is as poorly thought out as this idea. I'll focus on your citations as @ABCbits has already showed the gaping technical issues with your proposal through his questions.

The first citation you list, The hidden environmental costs of cryptocurrency (found at https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:9528/UN-IWEH_BTC_Report.pdf), uses information from your second citation, CBECI.

The first report even notes this and helpfully summarizes the methods used by the CBECI:

"First, the monthly electricity use for BTC mining in the 76 BTC mining nations monitored by CBECI between January 2020 to December 2021 was roughly estimated using the average monthly hashrate share of each country and the total monthly electricity use of the global BTC mining network. Then the average carbon, water, and land footprint of electricity generation in each BTC mining nation were estimated [41, 42] based on its energy supply mix data as reported by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the environmental footprints of electricity generation from different sources using the scientific literature data on footprint valuesy [41, 42]. Multiplying the BTC electricity use in each country by its footprint values provided the carbon, water, and land footprint estimated of BTC mining for that country."

So even if all Bitcoin miners switched to using renewable energy today, the data collection method would still hold them responsible for the carbon footprint of their residing countries. For all we know this could already be the case, but the data isn't able to tell us.

It's almost academically dishonest to reference those numbers in any serious publication. The CBECI explicitly mentions these assumptions (https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/ghg/methodology), so they can argue they don't hide it, but publishing this information with such uncertain methods in the first place should be condemned.
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 5082
Merit: 3832



View Profile
December 11, 2024, 07:34:26 PM
Merited by vapourminer (1), ABCbits (1)
 #5

Rather than repeat what others have written, I would like to point out the problem with "carbon footprint".

The "carbon footprint" concept was invented as a way to get consumers to pressure the greenhouse gas producers to reduce their carbon emissions. Now the concept seems to be shifting that responsibility away from the actual culprits.

It is up to the power generators to reduce the amount of carbon that they burn, and not the users of their electricity. If power generators burned no carbon, then users would have no carbon footprint, regardless of how much electricity they use.


Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
3fxmj (OP)
Copper Member
Newbie
*
Offline

Activity: 2
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 10, 2025, 10:41:23 AM
Last edit: May 06, 2025, 04:02:15 PM by mprep
 #6

Regarding the quotes below:


The discussion started in this thread shouldn't be about bitcoin's potential environmental impact, nor about debating the carbon footprint concept, which is admittedly controversial, or the accuracy of CBECI's methods. Rather, it's about addressing one of the main criticisms of bitcoin: its environmental damage. Addressing this criticism is critical to the reputation and growth of the bitcoin community. By addressing concerns head-on, bitcoin can change the narrative and demonstrate a commitment to sustainability.



Rather than repeat what others have written, I would like to point out the problem with "carbon footprint".

The "carbon footprint" concept was invented as a way to get consumers to pressure the greenhouse gas producers to reduce their carbon emissions. Now the concept seems to be shifting that responsibility away from the actual culprits.

It is up to the power generators to reduce the amount of carbon that they burn, and not the users of their electricity. If power generators burned no carbon, then users would have no carbon footprint, regardless of how much electricity they use.


The data sources used to inspire this proposal is as poorly thought out as this idea. I'll focus on your citations as @ABCbits has already showed the gaping technical issues with your proposal through his questions.

The first citation you list, The hidden environmental costs of cryptocurrency (found at https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:9528/UN-IWEH_BTC_Report.pdf), uses information from your second citation, CBECI.

The first report even notes this and helpfully summarizes the methods used by the CBECI:

"First, the monthly electricity use for BTC mining in the 76 BTC mining nations monitored by CBECI between January 2020 to December 2021 was roughly estimated using the average monthly hashrate share of each country and the total monthly electricity use of the global BTC mining network. Then the average carbon, water, and land footprint of electricity generation in each BTC mining nation were estimated [41, 42] based on its energy supply mix data as reported by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the environmental footprints of electricity generation from different sources using the scientific literature data on footprint valuesy [41, 42]. Multiplying the BTC electricity use in each country by its footprint values provided the carbon, water, and land footprint estimated of BTC mining for that country."

So even if all Bitcoin miners switched to using renewable energy today, the data collection method would still hold them responsible for the carbon footprint of their residing countries. For all we know this could already be the case, but the data isn't able to tell us.

It's almost academically dishonest to reference those numbers in any serious publication. The CBECI explicitly mentions these assumptions (https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/ghg/methodology), so they can argue they don't hide it, but publishing this information with such uncertain methods in the first place should be condemned.



Thank you for your thoughtful comment

You raise important concerns about the use of Trusted Execution Environments (TEE) in a distributed network, particularly regarding potential hardware vulnerabilities. It's clear that hardware restrictions may not be the best approach. The intent of this post is to start a conversation about one of the main criticisms bitcoin faces from investors and lawmakers.

While time-limiting the mining process could be a potential solution, the real goal is to gather ideas from the community on how we can effectively address these criticisms. If there are alternative suggestions on how to address the major concerns surrounding bitcoin, we'd be happy to explore those as well. This post is just a starting point for brainstorming, not a final proposal.

It's weird your thread got deleted. Anyway, i'm here to re-ask these question.

Conceivable is to integrate a Truste Execution Environment (TEE) into the ASIC chips used in the mining process. The TEE then maintains an idle log based on hardware parameters such as power consumption and hardware temperature. The TEE also timestamps and verifies the log and securely signs and transmits it to the blockchain, either at regular intervals or upon verification requests from the verifier.

1. What stops ASIC manufacture to make fake/malicious TEE which send manipulated data to maximize miners income?
2. How Bitcoin full nodes can verify the data comes from TEE without any tampering?

Regular hardware reviews and audits could enhance the system's resilience against tampering and ensure the integrity of idle proofs. Other implementations using network analysis or even physical inspection are also conceivable. Verification of green transactions does not have to be immediate and can be approved with some delay.

Without oracle or 3rd party, how Bitcoin full nodes can verify the audit is being done truthfully and competently?

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
NotATether
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 2408
Merit: 9911


┻┻ ︵㇏(°□°㇏)


View Profile WWW
January 10, 2025, 11:27:03 AM
 #7

You can't fix a hardware problem with a protocol change.

This proposal seems to indicate that miners will just buy more ASICs and run them as an offset to having to leave them all idle most of the time. Assuming suppliers can keep up, I think the environmental impact will be the same. If they can't, then miners will go bankrupt and hashrate collapses to a smaller amount.

 
 b1exch.to 
  ETH      DAI   
  BTC      LTC   
  USDT     XMR    
.███████████▄▀▄▀
█████████▄█▄▀
███████████
███████▄█▀
█▀█
▄▄▀░░██▄▄
▄▀██▄▀█████▄
██▄▀░▄██████
███████░█████
█░████░█████████
█░█░█░████░█████
█░█░█░██░█████
▀▀▀▄█▄████▀▀▀
odolvlobo
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 5082
Merit: 3832



View Profile
January 10, 2025, 11:27:32 PM
Merited by ABCbits (1)
 #8

The discussion started in this thread shouldn't be about bitcoin's potential environmental impact, nor about debating the carbon footprint concept, which is admittedly controversial, or the accuracy of CBECI's methods. Rather, it's about addressing one of the main criticisms of bitcoin: its environmental damage.

I don't understand why the carbon footprint concept should not be debated when it is a foundation of your proposal.

I don't understand the difference between "potential environmental impact" and "environmental damage".

And by questioning the validity these criticisms of bitcoin, are we not addressing them?

Join an anti-signature campaign: Click ignore on the members of signature campaigns.
PGP Fingerprint: 6B6BC26599EC24EF7E29A405EAF050539D0B2925 Signing address: 13GAVJo8YaAuenj6keiEykwxWUZ7jMoSLt
ABCbits
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 3682
Merit: 10221



View Profile
January 11, 2025, 08:16:35 AM
Merited by vapourminer (2), ranochigo (2)
 #9

Thank you for your thoughtful comment

You raise important concerns about the use of Trusted Execution Environments (TEE) in a distributed network, particularly regarding potential hardware vulnerabilities. It's clear that hardware restrictions may not be the best approach. The intent of this post is to start a conversation about one of the main criticisms bitcoin faces from investors and lawmakers.

While time-limiting the mining process could be a potential solution, the real goal is to gather ideas from the community on how we can effectively address these criticisms. If there are alternative suggestions on how to address the major concerns surrounding bitcoin, we'd be happy to explore those as well. This post is just a starting point for brainstorming, not a final proposal.

--snip--

I'm disappointed with vague answer with very little technical detail to my questions, especially because your thread says "we introduce a very complex technical topic". If you want to address criticism or attack towards Bitcoin rather than having technical discussion about your proposal, why don't you create new thread on different board instead?

███████████████████████████
███████▄████████████▄██████
████████▄████████▄████████
███▀█████▀▄███▄▀█████▀███
█████▀█▀▄██▀▀▀██▄▀█▀█████
███████▄███████████▄███████
███████████████████████████
███████▀███████████▀███████
████▄██▄▀██▄▄▄██▀▄██▄████
████▄████▄▀███▀▄████▄████
██▄███▀▀█▀██████▀█▀███▄███
██▀█▀████████████████▀█▀███
███████████████████████████
.
.Duelbits PREDICT..
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████▀▀░░░░▀▀██████
██████████░░▄████▄░░████
█████████░░████████░░████
█████████░░████████░░████
█████████▄▀██████▀▄████
████████▀▀░░░▀▀▀▀░░▄█████
██████▀░░░░██▄▄▄▄████████
████▀░░░░▄███████████████
█████▄▄█████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
.
.WHERE EVERYTHING IS A MARKET..
█████
██
██







██
██
██████
Will Bitcoin hit $200,000
before January 1st 2027?

    No @1.15         Yes @6.00    
█████
██
██







██
██
██████

  CHECK MORE > 
HeRetiK
Legendary
*
Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 2321



View Profile
January 11, 2025, 12:46:20 PM
Merited by vapourminer (2), ABCbits (1)
 #10

While time-limiting the mining process could be a potential solution, the real goal is to gather ideas from the community on how we can effectively address these criticisms. If there are alternative suggestions on how to address the major concerns surrounding bitcoin, we'd be happy to explore those as well. This post is just a starting point for brainstorming, not a final proposal.

The answer to this lies in your original post:

Global warming is one of the key issues facing humanity in the 21st century. Research has shown that 67% of the electricity used for bitcoin mining in 2020-2021 came from fossil fuels.

That is to say, the answer lies in further shifting towards renewable energy. If 33% of electricity being used for Bitcoin mining is renewable, it's actually ahead of the curve, with renewables consisting of only 28% of global energy production in 2021:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production

If Bitcoin spearheads renewable energy and helps building infrastructure for renewable energy by providing additional economic incentive, everybody wins.

This might not be easy, but unlike creating trustless hardware for some convulated "Proof of Idle" it would be possible. And it would have a tangible positive impact that goes beyond the Bitcoin mining business.






▄▄████████████████████▄▄
▄███████▀▀██████▀▀███████▄
████████████████████████
████████▄▄██████▄▄██████

████████████████████████
██▄▄█████████████▄▄██████
██▀▀██████████████████▄▄██
██████▀▀██████████████▀▀██
██████████████████████████
██████▀▀██████▀▀████████
████████████████████████
▀███████▄▄██████▄▄███████▀
▀▀████████████████████▀▀
 
 DΞX.fo 
▄▄██████
█████████
██████████
█████████
██████████
█████████
▀▀██████

▄███████
▄██████████
████████████
█████████████
█████████████
|
▄▄█
▄████▀
▄███▀
▄██▀▄██
█████▀▀
███████
████████
▀██▄████
▄████▄▄
▄█████▀███
▄█████▀████
█████▀███████
▀██▀█████████
|..BTC......XMR...
..USDT.....LTC...
....Fees  0.8%.....
Pablo-wood
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 303



View Profile WWW
January 16, 2025, 10:00:36 AM
 #11

My overall concern here is won't there be high volume of idle transaction because as nodes get rewarded for staying idle rather than mining most miners will make attempts to claim reward almost at the same time and if the amount of data being distributed across the network becomes shortened won't there be issues resulting to congestion?

Now in case where there are idle nodes and idle transactions the impact might fall on block creation process possibly a delay in the processing and propagation of blocks.


██████▄▄████▄▄░
███▄████▀▀▀▀█░███▄
▄███▀████████▀████▄
▄███████████████████▄
█████████████████████
█████████████████████
█████████████████████
▀███████████████▄▄▀▀
▀███▄████████▄███▀
███▀████▄▄▄▄████▀
██████▀▀████▀▀
█▀▀▀▀











█▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.
Bitcointalk Archive 📚
Visualization ' Search

.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀█











▄▄▄▄█
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!