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
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
