<unnamed>

Public Key

npub1fxpmu0wykut57pw7d75tdfht8sv2ej7wlgvv7flgeqtt5mhgvh7syn8z7p

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsynqa78hztw960qh0xl29k5m4ncx9ve0805xx0yl5vs946dm5xtlgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnwv46q4lx93h

Publishing to

relay.nostr.net

Last Notes

2023-06-08 00:53:56 CEST

- reply

📅 Original date posted:2021-05-23
📝 Original message:Well, it is done automatically every 4 years :) It is a self-balancing
system - more people shout about Bitcoin being dirty -> less adoption ->
lower the price -> less energy consumption. Add on top the fact that in
2024 block rewards will fall 50% anyway and someday it will be zero.
I am all for making Bitcoin green(er), but IMHO there shall be no
short-termism of the sort "Elon complained + price dropped 40% - lets go
radically change things".
IMHO if we want to make BTC cleaner we can add functionality where users
can prioritise some miners over the others, with the view that users will
prioritise "green" miners and they will get more TX fees, and there will be
economic incentive to go green.
On Sun, 23 May 2021, 09:49 James Lu via bitcoin-dev, <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20210523/a3c73dd7/attachment-0001.html>