4 ms·

> I'm not sure if Ethereum will be around 100 years from now, but I'm pretty sure Bitcoin will. Bitcoin is fascinating. A kind of memetic virus feeding on vast

> I'm not sure if Ethereum will be around 100 years from now, but I'm pretty sure Bitcoin will. 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.

bhaak 4y ago
> The thought of 100 years of proof of work is pretty scary though. 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.
- danuker 4y ago
  Also, the inflationary block reward will go down exponentially.
- bpye 4y ago
  > gold is still considered valuable even though it is also only a meme asset nowadays 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...
olalonde 4y ago
> PoW may have to be regulated out of existence Why? How about we regulate things that pollute instead, like burning coal. PoW does not pollute nor emit greenhouse gases.
- anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  > How about we regulate things that pollute instead, like burning coal. 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.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    PoW doesn't directly emit greenhouse gases anymore than electric cars or toasters do. Unclean sources of energy are the real issue.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    > 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?
    - anonymous_sorry 4y ago
      >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.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
> regulated out of existence i bet it would obviate itself out of existence by associated fees being higher than alternatives (like staking, and whatever else might come along)?

bhaak 4y ago

> The thought of 100 years of proof of work is pretty scary though. 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.

danuker 4y ago
Also, the inflationary block reward will go down exponentially.
bpye 4y ago
> gold is still considered valuable even though it is also only a meme asset nowadays 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...

olalonde 4y ago

> PoW may have to be regulated out of existence Why? How about we regulate things that pollute instead, like burning coal. PoW does not pollute nor emit greenhouse gases.

anonymous_sorry 4y ago
> How about we regulate things that pollute instead, like burning coal. 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.
- olalonde 4y ago
  PoW doesn't directly emit greenhouse gases anymore than electric cars or toasters do. Unclean sources of energy are the real issue.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  > 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?
  - anonymous_sorry 4y ago
    >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.

jjtheblunt 4y ago

> regulated out of existence i bet it would obviate itself out of existence by associated fees being higher than alternatives (like staking, and whatever else might come along)?