<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1hp6u4u98w2pfl7l46akse33kaq8eg0gmu4z2l5cgz7dxjt2v5prqy499l0

Profile Code

nprofile1qqstsaw27znh9q5ll06awmgvccmwsru585d723906vyp0xnf94x2q3spzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg5waehxw309aex2mrp0yhxgctdw4eju6t0qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvnjf6hx

Publishing to

relay.primal.net

relay.damus.io

nos.lol

Last Notes

2023-06-08 00:53:56 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-05-22
📝 Original message:Background
===
Reducing the block reward reduces the incentive to mine. It reduces the
maximum energy price at which mining is profitable, reducing the energy use.
Bitcoins have value because they are accepted by full node users, from
individual node operators, to exchanges and custodians like Coinbase.
Anything else and the Bitcoins don't exist and are worthless. Like all
currencies, Bitcoin has value because others recognize that they have value.
Idea
===
Reduce the block reward by adding fewer coins to the UTXO set per block.
This should be done gradually
Consensus layer
===
This is a soft fork, because it tightens the
Some Possible Weaknesses
===
- It will cost less than a nation-state of energy to reverse recent Bitcoin
transactions.
- Some miners may protest and lobby exchanges.
- By pushing mining towards the cheapest energy sources, centralization
increases towards Chinese miners.
- The Bitcoin network may split if consensus is not built before flag day.
However, given the current political headwinds and widespread public
discussion around Bitcoin's energy use, it may be socially possible to ask
individual users and major exchanges to install a version of Bitcoin with a
reduced block reward.
Alternatives
===
Instead of outright rejecting transactions (and the blocks that contain
them) that attempt to spend increased block rewards, treat them as no-ops.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210522/d4bec4ce/attachment.html>