3 ms·

> Energy use in equilibrium is proportional to the value of the block rewards plus transaction rewards. Good point, you're right, I was forgetting this. > sin

> Energy use in equilibrium is proportional to the value of the block rewards plus transaction rewards. Good point, you're right, I was forgetting this. > since the value of each unit would have to increase to satisfy the demand. I didn't follow this though, what do you mean? > In a world where Bitcoin replaces gold or visa It doesn't seem very meaningful to me to talk about energy usage in this world because Bitcoin can't replace visa. To replace visa we would have to make enough changes to it that I don't have much of an idea of what the energy usage of the modified system will look like. Though let's consider Nervos' NC-Max, which gets a lot closer to replacing visa than an unmodified Bitcoin can. It works by, effectively, massively increasing the block size limit. In a NC-Max world energy usage would still be proportional to the coinbase but the coinbase might stay small because there's so much room in each block that transaction fees stay low.

paulgb 6y ago
> I didn't follow this though, what do you mean? I should have worded it better, I just mean that if Bitcoin were to replace gold as the primary store of value, the price of Bitcoin would have to rise significantly to absorb the demand, since supply is inelastic. This in turn would increase the environmental externalities.
- brian_cloutier 6y ago
  Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure it would increase the environmental externalities. Since transaction inclusion is a marketplace and since most products we care about will continue to be denominated in local currencies I don't think transaction fees will change much as the price of bitcoin changes. As the dollar-denominated value of a 0.01btc fee increases people will become less willing to spend that 0.01btc. There might be some stickiness but I expect the kwh-denominated fees will grow much more slowly than the price of bitcoin.

paulgb 6y ago

> I didn't follow this though, what do you mean? I should have worded it better, I just mean that if Bitcoin were to replace gold as the primary store of value, the price of Bitcoin would have to rise significantly to absorb the demand, since supply is inelastic. This in turn would increase the environmental externalities.

brian_cloutier 6y ago
Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure it would increase the environmental externalities. Since transaction inclusion is a marketplace and since most products we care about will continue to be denominated in local currencies I don't think transaction fees will change much as the price of bitcoin changes. As the dollar-denominated value of a 0.01btc fee increases people will become less willing to spend that 0.01btc. There might be some stickiness but I expect the kwh-denominated fees will grow much more slowly than the price of bitcoin.