Bitcoin is fascinating. A kind of memetic virus feeding on vast amounts of energy via human mindshare. The thought of 100 years of proof of work is pretty scary though. I think eventually PoW may have to be regulated out of existence. It's not ideal, but with Bitcoin lacking any real governance or organisation, I don't see any other way of fixing it.
Only if it keeps its insane valuation. If its value goes down so will the hash rate.
> I think eventually PoW may have to be regulated out of existence. It's not ideal, but with Bitcoin lacking any real governance or organisation, I don't see any other way of fixing it.
It could be surpassed by another crypto currency. If that happens it will be very interesting to see if its value proposition still holds (gold is still considered valuable even though it is also only a meme asset nowadays) or if only a few enthusiasts will continue mining it.
If the latter happens the hashrate will collapse.
Whilst largely unrelated to it's value, gold does have useful applications as it is resistant to corrosion and has high electrical conductivity. I'm not convinced Bitcoin even has some equivalent of that...
i bet it would obviate itself out of existence by associated fees being higher than alternatives (like staking, and whatever else might come along)?
Why? How about we regulate things that pollute instead, like burning coal. PoW does not pollute nor emit greenhouse gases.
This is a totally fair point. The price of carbon emissions should reflect their true cost.
> PoW does not pollute nor emit greenhouse gases.
I'm not sure whether you're saying PoW doesn't directly emit greenhouse gases, or that the carbon footprint of PoW mining is zero.
So you are okay with someone mining bitcoins if they do so using Solar energy?
Well there are two separate issues.
The first is that the price of hydrocarbons doesn't include the externalised cost of CO2 emissions, leading to market distortion. In a perfect world we would fix that, and see what shakes out.
If the combined effect of carbon taxes and high energy demand makes energy so expensive that people cannot afford the basics, then the next step is effectively one of rationing. If proof-of-waste miners are outbidding poorer people for energy they need to heat their homes (or the equipment to generate it), it might be necessary to ringfence energy production for providing a reasonable standard of living. If there is any excess then the miners and other discretionary users can compete to buy it.
All that is my understanding of how to employ market forces to most efficiently allocate energy resources to people that need it, whilst protecting the climate. But I don't know if we can get all that agreed in time, and I'll support anything that reduces unnecessary CO2 emissions quickly.
Ah he idea that Ethereum was funded by VCs is a really funny one, that has very little relation to reality. The funding was actually quite small.
Oh come on, Buterin was knighted by Thiel as some kind of boy genius. Buterin also spoke at TC Disrupt, etc. The argument that VCs played no role in Ethereum's meteoric growth is plain wrong.
Please provide further evidence of how VC funding made Ethereum, because off the books I’ve read on its origins, yeah there was some money out in at the start but nothing too crazy.
The second part of the miner reward consists of transaction fees which will compensate. Most small scale transactions will be done on second layers such as lightning, thus being unaffected, while big transactions for which the extra security is worth it will be willing to pay the high transaction fees.
To me, this looks like demand is going to cheaper blockchains instead of scaling on Bitcoin L2 solutions.
As long as there is free space in block it makes sense for miners to include any non-zero free transaction, so it is a race to bottom with only occasional surges, kinda like the ones that happen in Uber.
Almost $800k is burnt hourly. Very few people need to transfer that much, and those who do, can wait for extra confirmations.
I would like to see the block reward reduced even SOONER. Halvenings every 4 years is too slow. But I don't think it's going to happen sadly.
As for fees, they could be driven higher by limiting block size, should the community decide they need more security once the block reward becomes too small.
Point is: the algorithm is not infallible, and would have to adapt. Otherwise Bitcoin becomes brittle.
And for those purists out there Bitcoin classic will still be a thing! Sure nobody is using it and it's worth nothing...
The loss of something (in multiple hacks of various coins) is still an "investment", for those using it.
First off, there are other cryptocurrencies which function better than Bitcoin in every aspect - efficiency, speed, security. Many enforce scarcity and are non-programmatic, without being "boring".
> We know, without a doubt, that the only way to bring a valid bitcoin block into existence is by expending real energy in the real world.
That's not remotely true. Block lattice tech has been around for seven years now, utterly disproving that statement.
Bitcoin is using a huge amount of energy and it IS completely unnecessary to the enforcement of scarcity. Saying otherwise is a harmful lie - you've been duped.
> It emerged purely organically
Seriously? It "emerged" through a secretive pseudonym. No one can say whether it was even completely created by an individual, and not a secretive organization with ulterior motives.
Acting as if this so-call "organic" emergence puts it ahead of subsequent evolutions is bizarre, and I hope you can see that once it's pointed out. Would you claim the Wright brother's plane is more organic and therefore more long-lived as a design? Edison's lightbulb? How about version 1.0 of Windows? Is whale oil more organic and therefore better than fusion power?
Bitcoin will be around in a hundred years - in the museum of human folly. "People used to think the only way to enforce scarcity was by burning their planet to a fucking cinder, lol".
> other cryptocurrencies which function better than Bitcoin in every aspect
and
> Block lattice tech has been around for seven years now, utterly disproving that statement
are false statements of fact. To date, there have been no alternatives to bitcoin that are functioning better than bitcoin, because Bitcoin remains the most secure, most scarce digital asset. All other chains attempt to improve certain metrics at a cost of either decreasing decentralisation, increasing attack vectors/attack surface, or increasing the codebase complexity significantly.
> "People used to think the only way to enforce scarcity was by burning their planet to a fucking cinder, lol"
This is also an often debated point. The fact is that this is a multi-faceted discussion with a vast array of nuance and arguments to and fro. Yes, bitcoin is being mined on coal energy, also yes: Bitcoin is being used to reduce the amount of methane emissions.
Simply framing this as a "bitcoin uses energy" discussion and not a "bitcoin mining leads to carbon emissions" which is what the discussion actually should be is reason enough to scratch yourself on the head whether you are actively pushing biased arguments.
And yes, this discussion (Bitcoin mining leads to carbon emissions) is something most Bitcoiners have discussed and researched to a point where they can comfortably back this concept.
> [...] Many enforce scarcity and are non-programmatic, without being "boring".
The word "boring" has a very not obvious meaning here. Clearly there's nothing boring about Ethereum, since it's a high-stakes experiment involving computer science, economics and a lot of money. Ethereum is really "too interesting".
> [...] huge amount of energy [is] completely unnecessary to the enforcement of scarcity. Saying otherwise is a harmful lie - you've been duped.
Care to back that up?
To my knowledge, PoW offers an unambiguous measure of what block to bet on.
On the other hand, PoS is either subvertible (capable of being overthrown), or subjective (not objectively verifiable) when determining what block to bet on.
Maybe you are referring to a proof-of-something-else-entirely.
> Acting as if [Bitcoin's] so-call "organic" emergence puts it ahead of subsequent evolutions is bizarre
I totally agree.
Bitcoin's origin is atypical in that there weren't widely adopted cryptocurrencies before it.
Any subsequent cryptocurrency happened in the light of Bitcoin. But a hype train is a hype train, and there was one for Bitcoin. It just didn't enter with an ICO or a similar financing model delivering promises, which makes it seem less scammy.
Block Lattice crypto. It's neither PoW or PoS.
Here are the top two DDG results for "block lattice explained": https://medium.com/swlh/what-you-need-to-know-about-block-la... https://blog.metalpay.com/metalpay/understanding-block-latti...
Some hard numbers for Nano, as an example of block lattice tech:
> Nano uses 0.000112 kwh hours per transaction compared to Bitcoin’s 950 KWH
> The entire Nano network is so efficient that, operating at 7000tps, it can be powered by a single wind turbine
- https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/09/is-nano-really-the-most-ec...
Nano is feeless (with anti-spam mechanics), with all (minimal) costs per transaction borne by the "nodes" that keep the network running. Transactions are often confirmed in less than a second. This isn't bullshit or vaporware, it's running right now and you can try it yourself - https://www.trynano.io/
As far as security, no one has broken it in 7 years. While I'm not equipped to evaluate the maths, I hear block lattice is more "quantum resistant" than ECC.
Bitcoin outperforms Nano in sunk costs, hype / false info, and held bags. On every other objective and useful measure, it's not even remotely close.
The first link literally says: "What determines the voting power of a single representative? The amount of coins delegated to it by users.". Is this not PoS ?
While Nano uses a weighted-voting system (ORV) that can be compared to PoS, it differs from traditional PoS because:
* There is not one monolithic blockchain that requires leader selection (i.e. a staker or a miner) to extend
* Representatives do not create or produce shared blocks (groups of transactions)
* Each Nano account has its own blockchain that only the owner can modify (representatives can only modify their own blockchain)
* In Nano, a block is a single transaction (not a group of transactions). Transactions are evaluated individually and asynchronously
* Users can remotely re-delegate their voting weight to anyone at any time
* Anyone can be a representative
* No funds are staked or locked up
* Representatives do not earn transaction fees
* Representatives cannot reverse transactions that nodes have locally confirmed (due to block cementing).
Seem.
The most applicable things, those that people find useful and gain market share, will be used. How long they are used depends on other things.
Hopefully, Bitcoin will be seen for what it is in 10 or so years, an experiment gone awry, absorbing far too much time and talent, and in 100 years nobody will fathom what BTC was just as we don't remember the names of any 'spindle' manufacturers from 100 years ago.
Digital currency will surely exist.
Bitcoin is the Model T or the grey brick cellphone of crypto. On one hand, it's the proof of concept that proves the thing can work, and thus changes tech forever. But also, it won't be "the thing" because its tech is inferior to what comes next, and I think it's smarter to bet on the quality of the tech than anything else.
I'm not sure if Ethereum is the next thing, though it's a strong contender. I am nearly certain that bitcoin eventually will not be "the thing;" especially given that the whole point of most crypto is fungibility.
This is a gross mischaracterization of altcoins. Some try to provide the same functionality as Bitcoin but with greater simplicity, better scalability and privacy (Mimblewimble blockchains), and a fairer emission.
#notallblockchains!
The privacy-focused blockchains generally resemble Bitcoin + zero-knowledge:
UTXO-based, commitment schemes instead of a shared, public global state.
I'm not a BTC maxi in any sense of that term, but I do agree that the most interesting cryptocurrency (economically-speaking) is, by far, Bitcoin. It emerged purely organically, it enforces scarcity, and it provides no "utility" other than "value." It's not like Ethereum (functioning as a distributed VM: boring, and funded by VCs: double boring) or any other blockchain (which basically is just trying to copy Ethereum).
In other words, I'm not sure if Ethereum will be around 100 years from now, but I'm pretty sure Bitcoin will.