Development for Bitcoin to reduce CO2 footprint - page 2.

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Quote from: HeRetiK on June 24, 2019, 10:46:33 AM

Just a thought, for anyone who like me doubts that a secure, permissionless alternative to PoW will be found:

What if one were to create a PoW based alt coin that automatically pays part of the block reward to an environmental organization offsetting PoW-caused CO2 emissions?

The problem is of course finding consensus on which organization to support, but IMO that's probably easier to solve than the double-spend problem as the incentives are less mis-aligned. At worst you would have a developer-based "dictatorship" where devs would decide on which organization to support, but that still wouldn't be much different from alts where a predetermined, transparent percentage of newly issued currency goes into a dev fund, only it would be a CO2 fund instead.

As for which environmental organization to support, there's already a couple of well-vetted non-profit organizations that help people off-set their air-traffic-caused CO2 emissions on a voluntary basis such as atmosfair: https://www.atmosfair.de/en/

In theory one could also try to get this into a Bitcoin hard fork but let's not kid ourselves.

What would be everyone's thought on this?

Thats a really good idea. But not Altcoin new creation. there are many social project not supported. Simply 1 BTC of the Block reward goes to CO2 fund like DEV reward.

Some other idea to change POW algo to something useful like SETI or the idea of Medicoin. Buit this not really work

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 2178

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Just a thought, for anyone who like me doubts that a secure, permissionless alternative to PoW will be found:

What if one were to create a PoW based alt coin that automatically pays part of the block reward to an environmental organization offsetting PoW-caused CO2 emissions?

The problem is of course finding consensus on which organization to support, but IMO that's probably easier to solve than the double-spend problem as the incentives are less mis-aligned. At worst you would have a developer-based "dictatorship" where devs would decide on which organization to support, but that still wouldn't be much different from alts where a predetermined, transparent percentage of newly issued currency goes into a dev fund, only it would be a CO2 fund instead.

As for which environmental organization to support, there's already a couple of well-vetted non-profit organizations that help people off-set their air-traffic-caused CO2 emissions on a voluntary basis such as atmosfair: https://www.atmosfair.de/en/

In theory one could also try to get this into a Bitcoin hard fork but let's not kid ourselves.

What would be everyone's thought on this?

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Quote from: Chris! on June 23, 2019, 08:36:35 PM

IMO the b.s. needs to be debunked once and for all. How much power does the USD consume? I need to order a roll of nickles, a roll of dimes and a roll of quarters. How much does that cost to mint, circulate and actually get into my hand? With such an outdated concept of moving metal around a country, it's obvious without looking into it that fiat takes a hell of alot more energy than anyone realizes. Does anyone care though? Of course not! Because it serves a very important purpose. Bitcoin has an even greater purpose and will be using power to do so.

Also, these estimates are all over the place because it's impossible to calculate. Even if you assume everyone has the same ASIC, how can you tell where they all are and what type of power they're using? What percentage is solar, hydro, wind? You'll never hear that. It's all burning coal to make electricity to mine bitcoins. It's a mirage to sway the general public into thinking that bitcoins are for criminals, it's bad for the environment or whatever other FUD.

Does anyone remember when the internet was going to use the entire world's power? I think we turned out okay, and the internet is pretty useful IMO.

Again pointing on others is like kindergarden Wink

Edit: I am not interested in Sathoshi Vision. "Team Sathoshi" (I think it was a team) is dead for 10 years now.

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Quote from: Ucy on June 23, 2019, 03:29:54 PM

Has research been done on the number of people mining with green energy? Why do you think clean energy is bad for mining?I think we should be talking about the reduction in dirty energy usage and not try to eliminate energy usage completely.
Proof of stake is not an option. It encourages elitism which is
against satoshi vision.

We probably should be looking at making mining more decentralized, energy efficient, very affordable, profitable for small miners and remain PoW (or PoW+PoS)

Read the thread complete I answer already.

erikoy

full member

Activity: 686

Merit: 125

Well, there are many reason that one can reduce the CO2 production but we cannot say that it is only bitcoin that could be the reason for this. Whether there is bitcoin or not the sole reason to reduce CO2 production is to save mother earth and this is to produce electricity that could be use in household that limits and minimize the CO2 production. As OP stated those are the example of lesser CO2 production electricity generator in the likes of solar power panel, geothermal, windmills, and water pressure like in those rivers with high current.

Chris!

legendary

Activity: 1382

Merit: 1122

IMO the b.s. needs to be debunked once and for all. How much power does the USD consume? I need to order a roll of nickles, a roll of dimes and a roll of quarters. How much does that cost to mint, circulate and actually get into my hand? With such an outdated concept of moving metal around a country, it's obvious without looking into it that fiat takes a hell of alot more energy than anyone realizes. Does anyone care though? Of course not! Because it serves a very important purpose. Bitcoin has an even greater purpose and will be using power to do so.

Also, these estimates are all over the place because it's impossible to calculate. Even if you assume everyone has the same ASIC, how can you tell where they all are and what type of power they're using? What percentage is solar, hydro, wind? You'll never hear that. It's all burning coal to make electricity to mine bitcoins. It's a mirage to sway the general public into thinking that bitcoins are for criminals, it's bad for the environment or whatever other FUD.

Does anyone remember when the internet was going to use the entire world's power? I think we turned out okay, and the internet is pretty useful IMO.

Ucy

sr. member

Activity: 2674

Merit: 403

Compare rates on different exchanges & swap.

Has research been done on the number of people mining with green energy? Why do you think clean energy is bad for mining?I think we should be talking about the reduction in dirty energy usage and not try to eliminate energy usage completely.
Proof of stake is not an option. It encourages elitism which is
against satoshi vision.

We probably should be looking at making mining more decentralized, energy efficient, very affordable, profitable for small miners and remain PoW (or PoW+PoS)

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 2178

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: Machine Funk on June 21, 2019, 06:28:52 PM

Should we not be thinking of reducing the CO2 elsewhere? How about the way the parts for miners and pc's are made? How is the metal smelted? How is the gold for the terminals and conductors mined? What about the trucks, planes, and buses that transport all these parts? I am pretty sure the CO2 gases produced from making the raw materials far outweigh the CO2 caused directly from mining?

I wouldn't be so sure about miner production carbon footprint far outweighing the carbon footprint of mining itself, but it might be a quite signficant portion of it.

For perspective here's a study from 2011 according to which "as much as 70 percent of the energy needed to make and operate a typical laptop computer throughout its life span is used in manufacturing the computer" [1]. With mining hardware having a much shorter lifespan than your average consumer laptop that impact is definitely not to be underestimated, even assuming efficiency improvements in hardware production since 2011.

[1] https://phys.org/news/2011-04-factory-energy.html

Machine Funk

member

Activity: 144

Merit: 10

Should we not be thinking of reducing the CO2 elsewhere? How about the way the parts for miners and pc's are made? How is the metal smelted? How is the gold for the terminals and conductors mined? What about the trucks, planes, and buses that transport all these parts? I am pretty sure the CO2 gases produced from making the raw materials far outweigh the CO2 caused directly from mining?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: ?? on ??

I dont understand why people like to concentrate to the specific case of BTC energy consumption which probably is much less then the banking sector + electronic payment processors like VISA consumes.

world wide refrigeration of bottles of Pepsi uses more electric than bitcoin..
the only benefit of Pepsi is that a few hours after consuming it you can make your toilet water yellow

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Quote from: BTCCoaster on June 21, 2019, 04:56:04 AM

An ideal solution to make sure BTC has a viable future would be the emergence of 100% renewable energies which leave a minimal carbon footprint. Roll on

Please read complete thread about problems renewable energies.

And even that you could better use to maybe drive a car or use for producing company.

BTCCoaster

newbie

Activity: 34

Merit: 0

An ideal solution to make sure BTC has a viable future would be the emergence of 100% renewable energies which leave a minimal carbon footprint. Roll on

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Very actual ENGLISH article in a science magazine that descripes that the actual arctic melt is actual as expected for 2090 (!!!) Shocked

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019GL082187?referrer_access_token=gif7B3jxrlxKX5XghEFo1MOuACxIJX3yJRZRu4P4eruQZUBUWJDPFZF94DV9GaH13SVhl7o9BSrpCCjFd9XCvk87MqQN_rOa7zNjzSfT3EyEk-pBnnCivDMbXpI6xSuZY9VC6t1b9t1pxp8zOux4oQ%3D%3D&

Everyone must do something. And if NEW Bitcoin is only 80% safe its worth sparing 30000 kt CO2 a year Embarrassed

We are not heading in a global crisis people will die of. We are IN a global crises. Cry

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

I have again a very very cool article, but again in german ( I dont read english news Wink

)

For those guys who can understand the joke and how near we are to collaps with climate , they will change mind. I forget about it but it open my mind to do non comfort choices for the CO2 reduction:

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/klimawandel-den-absturz-kann-man-nicht-wegdiskutieren-kolumne-a-1271315.html

Alijiindahaus

member

Activity: 406

Merit: 11

Recently, the network has information that scientists from the University of Munich have revealed how mining affects the environment. According to their data, the extraction of cryptocurrency emit only carbon dioxide, such as Sri Lanka. It seems to me that these scientists have nothing to do and therefore I do not invent such nonsense.

TimeTeller

hero member

Activity: 2744

Merit: 588

Quote from: IPVPIRL on June 15, 2019, 06:02:02 PM

Industries are using pollution permits from governments, which means they buy rights of a certain amount of pollution.

Once the hash rate is determined to pass the threshold of creating environmental damage, companies as Bitmain will be asked to pay for this.

There are laws in every country that demand reduction of pollution and protection of the environment.

So to conclude, everything has a limit. If Bitcoin hash power becomes a problem that causes environmental damage, there are means, like the pollution permits, that won't allow it to happen.

And since you turned it into a POW argument, be certain that this would never happen.

Yes, it should be treated like any other industry that is consuming energy.
So bitcoin mining should not be an isolated case, but rather another rising industry that is revolutionizing the digital technology.
And we are already reaping the benefits of blockchain technology at this stage.
And with that being said, the existing laws in terms of environmental concerns should also be applied to crypto mining and not to be addressed as special case.

IPVPIRL

member

Activity: 192

Merit: 13

Industries are using pollution permits from governments, which means they buy rights of a certain amount of pollution.

Once the hash rate is determined to pass the threshold of creating environmental damage, companies as Bitmain will be asked to pay for this.

There are laws in every country that demand reduction of pollution and protection of the environment.

So to conclude, everything has a limit. If Bitcoin hash power becomes a problem that causes environmental damage, there are means, like the pollution permits, that won't allow it to happen.

And since you turned it into a POW argument, be certain that this would never happen.

Twinkledoe

full member

Activity: 1904

Merit: 138

★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!

Quote from: bitmover on June 01, 2019, 11:20:48 AM

Old subject...

Pos was not tested in a big network such as bitcoin. Not even ethereum tried it yet. And bitcoin must be more conservative, as a change in the algorithm could cause lots of unexpected problems. Let other shitcoins try first...

Peer coin and other cryptocurrencies which tried are very small and barely used..

Also, pow is working fine. Why people care so much about bitcoin energy consumption to secure the network?

How much does the whole banking system consumes? How much energy does christimas lights worldwide consume?
Bitcoin energy consumption is necessary, as it keeps the network safe and secure against attacks. We should focus in reducing energy costs in less important activities, such as christimas or old lamps with high energy consumption

What more can I say. There are also a large number of industries that consume a lot of energy which are being used abusively and in due course, they are wasting energy for nothing. For instance, if they will integrate blockchain technology within their operations, I am sure they will save a lot more energy, and manpower. Bitcoin energy consumption is not wasted after all, just like you said, it is necessary for the network to keep safe and secure and also keeping the chain alive. So yes, I don't think we are not wasting energy when it comes to bitcoin. There are other industries that should take a look in saving energy consumption.

konfuzius5278

member

Activity: 637

Merit: 11

Quote from: HeRetiK on June 15, 2019, 01:22:43 PM

Quote from: konfuzius5278 on June 15, 2019, 08:16:27 AM

Read what I say. There are many coins using hardly any Energy for their existance and are not as vulnerable as POW hardliners always try to say. [...]

Many coins that are hardly used. It's nice to argue about scalability and security when no one uses a coin, in practice the reality usually looks quite different. So far the only "consensus" algorithms that seem to be both scalable and secure without relying on PoW are permissioned ones at which point we're back at square one.

That being said, which of the "many coins that use hardly any energy but are still secure" are you referring to precisely?

Most people talk of PivX and its fork. I know they have problems with chainsplit and chain stuck of attack. But as fair as I know there were never coins stolen of PivX.

And even my own coin as Nova coin fork is very small and code from years ago but runs stabile without any chainsplit or something like that within 1,5 years. And with a block time of a minute you can even do a payment

So there must be options, that is my idea, to opimize the existing coins code to generate a stable, fast, POS fork.

And Etherum always claimed as example, but ETH has also its contract useability so much more on chain then BTC.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 2178

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: konfuzius5278 on June 15, 2019, 08:16:27 AM

Read what I say. There are many coins using hardly any Energy for their existance and are not as vulnerable as POW hardliners always try to say. [...]

Many coins that are hardly used. It's nice to argue about scalability and security when no one uses a coin, in practice the reality usually looks quite different. So far the only "consensus" algorithms that seem to be both scalable and secure without relying on PoW are permissioned ones at which point we're back at square one.

That being said, which of the "many coins that use hardly any energy but are still secure" are you referring to precisely?

Topic: Development for Bitcoin to reduce CO2 footprint - page 2. (Read 1484 times)