From: honest69abe <honest69abe@protonmail•com>
To: jlrubin@mit•edu, SatoshiSingh@protonmail•com,
bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Opinion on proof of stake in future
Date: Sat, 08 May 2021 02:40:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <EmeXoxWiQfJsJqUqUtd9dfiBaxyILASksimq7iGF0_O8HH2UV-RaMRUlHCb_xhcA61hlK4hMeooafgDIVFxCDgo_ms3otRS9aU0dR3oHtvA=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5xwhi9fxgzYXCsWLUYJ1Bw7Txxnnsm46ySnJTEAiDxqg9UQA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3782 bytes --]
And to address your energy usage concern:
Energy usage, in-and-of-itself, is nothing to be ashamed of!! It's the composition of that energy usage that could be shameful. There is much debate currently about what that composition is for Bitcoin, but those estimates range from between 20-80% renewable. However, where it currently stands is largely irrelevant...
What is more important;
Bitcoin mining introduces the first free-market demand for the cheapest energy source.
I think most people are unaware of how impactful this is.
Renewable energies have crossed over into being the cheapest forms of energy and are still declining at steep rates. Estimates from the International Renewable Energy Agency breakdown the Levelized Cost of Energy as such: Geothermal ($0.05-0.1/kWh), Coal (0.06-0.07), natural gas (0.04-0.07), wind (0.02-0.05), solar (0.03-0.04), hydro (0.01-0.04).
Thus, Bitcoin is the first intrinsic incentive for humans to invest in cheapest energy, which happen to be the cleanest forms of energy.
Bitcoin as a free-market energy generation incentive that doesn't also optimize for human habitability will be civilizationally changing. E.g. solar farms in deserts, high-altitude wind.
Welcome to any thoughts and criticisms of my thinking here
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
-------- Original Message --------
On May 7, 2021, 7:19 PM, Jeremy via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Proof-of-stake tends towards oligopolistic control, which is antithetical to bitcoin.
>
> Proof-of-stake also has some other security issues that make it a bad substitute for Proof-of-work with respect to equivocation (reorgs).
>
> Overall you'll find me personally in the camp that it's OK to explore non-PoW means of consensus long term that can keep the network in consensus in a more capital efficient manner, but that proof-of-stake is not such a substitute. Other Bitcoiners will disagree with this invariably, but if you truly have a novel solution for Byzantine Generals, it would be a major contribution to not just Bitcoin but the field of computer science as a whole and would likely get due consideration.
>
> What's difficult is that Bitcoin PoW has some very specific properties that may or may not be desirable around e.g. fairness that might be difficult to ensure in other systems, so there is probably more to the puzzle than just consensus.
> --
> [@JeremyRubin](https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin)https://twitter.com/JeremyRubin
>
> On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 3:50 PM SatoshiSingh via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello list,
>>
>> I am a lurker here and like many of you I worry about the energy usage of bitcoin mining. I understand a lot mining happens with renewable resources but the impact is still high.
>>
>> I want to get your opinion on implementing proof of stake for bitcoin mining in future. For now, proof of stake is still untested and not battle tested like proof of work. Though someday it will be.
>>
>> In the following years we'll be seeing proof of stake being implemented. Smaller networks can test PoS which is a luxury bitcoin can't afford. Here's how I see this the possibilities:
>>
>> 1 - Proof of stake isn't a good enough security mechanism
>> 2 - Proof of state is a good security mechanism and works as intended
>>
>> IF PoS turns out to be good after battle testing, would you consider implementing it for Bitcoin? I understand this would invoke a lot of controversies and a hard fork that no one likes. But its important enough to consider a hard fork. What are your opinions provided PoS does work?
>>
>> Love from India.
>> _______________________________________________
>> bitcoin-dev mailing list
>> bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5599 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-08 2:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-07 17:17 SatoshiSingh
2021-05-07 23:04 ` Eric Voskuil
2021-05-08 14:33 ` Karl
2021-05-09 10:21 ` R E Broadley
2021-05-09 10:59 ` Karl
2021-05-07 23:19 ` Jeremy
2021-05-08 2:40 ` honest69abe [this message]
2021-05-08 14:42 ` Karl
2021-05-09 19:07 ` Cloud Strife
2021-05-08 13:44 ` Eric Martindale
2021-05-09 11:30 ` R E Broadley
2021-05-10 14:08 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-10 15:01 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-05-10 21:22 ` LORD HIS EXCELLENCY JAMES HRMH
2021-05-10 21:51 ` Jeremy
2021-05-17 16:58 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-18 7:06 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 10:16 ` Zac Greenwood
2021-05-18 10:42 ` ZmnSCPxj
2021-05-18 14:02 ` Zac Greenwood
2021-05-18 18:52 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-19 14:07 ` Michael Dubrovsky
2021-05-19 15:30 ` Michael Dubrovsky
2021-05-21 0:04 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-21 9:42 ` vizeet srivastava
2021-05-21 20:57 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-21 21:45 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-23 3:41 ` Lloyd Fournier
2021-05-23 19:10 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-23 19:28 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-24 13:47 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-24 20:43 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-24 21:49 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-25 1:52 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-25 13:00 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-25 20:01 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-25 21:10 ` befreeandopen
2021-05-26 6:53 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-26 13:11 ` befreeandopen
2021-05-26 22:07 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-28 14:40 ` befreeandopen
2021-05-28 20:06 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-28 21:40 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-06-01 8:21 ` befreeandopen
2021-06-01 16:33 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-06-01 19:26 ` befreeandopen
2021-06-01 20:28 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-06-03 5:30 ` SatoshiSingh
2021-06-07 6:15 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-27 10:08 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-27 13:11 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-05-28 14:36 ` befreeandopen
2021-05-25 8:22 ` befreeandopen
2021-06-15 11:13 ` James MacWhyte
2021-06-17 1:48 ` Lloyd Fournier
2021-06-17 3:31 ` Cloud Strife
2021-06-22 17:45 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-06-23 18:14 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-06-24 0:14 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-06-24 0:37 ` Keagan McClelland
2021-06-24 17:34 ` yanmaani
2021-06-24 21:50 ` Erik Aronesty
2021-06-25 0:29 ` yanmaani
2021-06-25 16:08 ` Ruben Somsen
[not found] ` <MN2PR10MB4030EBD14EF82E29CFEDD00FB1069@MN2PR10MB4030.namprd10.prod.outlook.com>
2021-06-26 16:26 ` Billy Tetrud
2021-05-08 10:21 Prayank
[not found] <mailman.100801.1624522329.32591.bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
2021-06-24 8:59 ` Carlo Spiller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='EmeXoxWiQfJsJqUqUtd9dfiBaxyILASksimq7iGF0_O8HH2UV-RaMRUlHCb_xhcA61hlK4hMeooafgDIVFxCDgo_ms3otRS9aU0dR3oHtvA=@protonmail.com' \
--to=honest69abe@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=SatoshiSingh@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jlrubin@mit$(echo .)edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox