Author: Karl 2021-05-23 12:08:33
Published on: 2021-05-23T12:08:33+00:00
A discussion on Bitcoin-dev mailing list was held regarding the issue of reducing the block reward and its impact on energy use. It was suggested that people who want to retain previous levels of security can offer to pay higher fees, thereby increasing miner reward and energy use again. The turn-around time for this takes a population of both users and miners to cause. Increasing popularity of bitcoin has a far bigger impact here and raises fees and energy use at an established rate. Properly accounting for the entropy increase of all kinds of pollution, the free market will naturally seek sustainable and renewable processes as it maximizes profitability in the long run. However, there is little economic incentive to fine carbon emissions because there is no well-established quick path to gain profit from reducing them. The reason to reduce Bitcoin's energy use would simply be to aid its popularity and quell public concern. Without doing this, people move to an altcoin, as increasing the value of bitcoin via spreading its use increases the demand for mining. What is needed is to enforce that pollution be paid for by those who cause it. This can require significant political influence to do, and should be what true environmentalists work towards. A proof-of-work function that directly proved carbon offsetting and an on-chain tax for environmental harm were suggested.It was also pointed out that the block rewards would fall 50% by 2024 anyway and someday it will be zero. If hashrate is rising slower than the block reward is dropping, then there could be a problem with dropping the block reward to make faster change to the hashrate curve. Elon Musk's complaint was not something new as many have been complaining about the issue for years.
Updated on: 2023-06-14T22:06:25.454493+00:00