Topic: Let's make mining sustainable - page 3. (Read 900 times)

I think mining activities have been greatly reduced since 2018. So this should not be the main issue about the cause of the problem. And besides, why does it have to be Bitcoin? Though not only bitcoin can be mined.
And one more thing, maybe you say that you don't blame BTC for the problem. However, you only underline the carbon footprint of BTC.

When in fact the most basic problem is not this, but more complex. In fact, it was not a forest fire but the burning of the forest by an irresponsible person. For the sake of what? The fire was carried out for the sake of widening their business.

if it really affects nature, then it must be done, we must move together to prevent greater disasters from happening, I think it's our job, not just the work of people who mine bitcoin .. !!

I think mining activities will continue even if there is a great forest fire. We know that Bitcoin has several large mines, but all of that is electric power which I feel will have very little pollution.
The biggest pollution at this time is still caused by transportation activities. Therefore sometimes it would be wise if we reduce the use of transportation in our daily activities.
For example by moving from gasoline-powered transportation to electricity-powered transportation. All to reduce dirty exhaust emissions. Start with yourself first.

this is the reason why using renewable energy sources is one of the best solutions to attack this situation. solar or wind energy for those areas that have plenty of it. and fortunately, a lot of areas can offer this source of energy. around the globe, you can use both of these sources.
but unfortunately, those blockchain projects that were introduced to explore solar energy seemed not to prosper with their objectives.  but if you are a solo miner, you can start by investing on solar panels or combi of wind turbines and solar panels. this combi is getting cheap already. and in the long run, you can earn a decent profit out of it...

I really doubt LN transactions will fully replace onchain transactions, since onchain transactions will always be viewed as more secure and simple. If Bitcoin in general will be popular enough, mining will be sustained with onchain fees, but in case it won't, we'll have no choice but to introduce inflation.

This is the point I was making. If mining is unprofitable and miners leave, then the difficulty readjusts until mining again becomes profitable.

The only point I was disagreeing on was that I don't think we will reach a point where mining is unprofitable at any electricity price. Blocks currently have fees of somewhere around 0.02 - 0.2 BTC, meaning in about 20 years' time we are going to hit the crossover point between fees and block reward (provided these fees stay constant, which is a big assumption to make on a 20 year timeline). What will the price per coin be in 20 years? How popular will bitcoin be? How many on-chain and off-chain transactions will there be? There are too many unknowns to make a reasonable prediction. But given that the world is moving towards electricity which is free to produce after the initial set up cost, I struggle to see a future where both bitcoin is successful but mining is unprofitable.

Sure, but the lower the hashrate the higher the risk of a 51% attack. The network maybe doesn't care if there are only 10 miners, but the users certainly will.

Again, this is the point I was making. Perhaps I didn't express myself clearly enough in my previous post.

See above. If in the future LN takes the majority of transactions off-chain and makes transaction fees per block negligible, and the block reward has halved enough to also be small enough so that mining truly is unprofitable and is only done by a small number of enthusiasts, then what protects us from one of the large mining companies booting up all their ASICs again and 51% attacking the network?

Last block no, last coin yes.

You say (now) its at risk, but this has always been Bitcoin's design. Take a look at some of the altcoins that people don't care mining anymore, then you can have an educated guess to what will happen.

Fact is Bitcoin miners will greatly diminish, but not disappear. It might go back to what it used to be in the first few years, this time only people that want to do it out of their own pocket. If you think (now) that this is a mistake, you never learned Bitcoin's design.

Since the beginning, Bitcoin (network) doesn't care if 10 or a million miners exist. The blockchain is still safe, and the nodes work and ensure things for everyone. And yes, expect the number of nodes to be higher than the number of miners, when it becomes completely unprofitable to mine in the future.

If you have free electricity, for example because you invested in renewable generation, it would be technically profitable, or perhaps if there is some market for the so called "virgin" coins, which are rapidly diminishing in production.

After 10 years you never saw this coming? What have you been doing? This is NOT a problem, it is doing as intended. Less miners do NOT put Bitcoin at risk, and there is never going to be a complete stop in mining, there is always enthusiasts that don't care.

Now you might remember Cannan's idea of putting asic miners inside household appliances, this is probably something that will be revisited. Canaan simply acted a bit too soon, but Asic miners inside TVs, Wifi routers or even simple heat spreaders will cater to these people, that will want to keep Bitcoin's network running, or the merchants that have already embrace it and are running nodes too.

The hashrate will reduce, but not as much as you think. Because the more efficient asics compensate the situation. However, later it won't be that profitable to manufacture those asics, and much less devote so much money in r&d to improve them as much as with the market in 2016. Even Bitmain will have to reconsider their core business if they want to remain around.

This could take the next halving or two, but it is coming, like it or not. The theory is that at the end Bitcoin transaction fee provide the incentive, i guess so but LN threatens those fees to be negligible anyway so it will be mostly enthusiasts many in from this forum (i expect the large Chinese, etc. miners to leave).

GPU prices are very expensive. When Bitcoin or Ethereum mining is popular, hardware prices rise immediately. If there isn't any difficulty, there will be loss of value. Gold is very difficult to reach and very costly, even if there is plenty of similar thing available in it.

Something everyone would want. But I don't think it's easily achievable. For this to happen, we must first experience an extraordinary improvement in mining equipment. ASICs, GPUs ... Better and less energy consuming. But more importantly, more people are supporting Bitcoin.
This has nothing to do with the bushfire in Australia. But of course it would be great to protect nature.

Too much electricity is consumed to produce Bitcoin. I agree with this situation. But is the production of other swap vehicles very cheap? Bitcoin is a result of the current economy. The economic impasse led people to Bitcoin. A solution based on solar energy will be developed.

To reduce the footprint we should first get to consensus on where it currently stands. I agree that it's important to help our environment and that the beginning of the year already shows the serious consequences of previous policies. The problem is that I've seen conflicting research about Bitcoin mining's impact on the environment. There's been data saying that it's mostly clean energy that's used, and some suggest quite the opposite. So which one is it?
Secondly, it's, unfortunately, something very hard to control. I  don't mine, so I'm not a part of it, but when I use electricity in a flat I rent (or even when those who own flats in my country do that), it's not up to me what is the source of that energy and how clean it is. It's up to the government. So how can this be changed by miners?

If that becomes the case, then bitcoin's future existence is at risk. Even once the block reward is zero, we still need miners to be operating and sustained by transaction fees, or else the hashrate falls to zero, no new blocks are found, and therefore transactions aren't possible. Of course, that would never happen because the difficulty would readjust and so it would again become profitable to mine with less powerful hardware using less electricity.

There is no "last block", or at least if there is, it's because bitcoin is no more.

I also think that Mining for Bitcoin will not last long it has an end after the last block had been mine all mining procedures will also come to a halt, but not to mention the past mining that had to happen and it already contributed to the population and I think it is already too late the damage had been done,

But in my opinion, don't blame it all in the mining of the block there are much bigger things that make the environment and our world into global warming and I think we can sure focus on that because I truly think that mining is just a small portion of that problem so just chill.

I'm in IT, and I have already devised a master plan that will effectively reduce mining footprint (actually Satoshi did): Do NOTHING.

Yes nothing. Because the halvings ensure mining becomes less and less profitable overtime, the large mining you see today will be gone tomorrow. You are only watching the last leg, until it becomes unprofitable to mine at any electricity price.

Exactly how you should always consider the State intervening in the economy: Don't. Just wait it out and see how it solves by itself due to free market forces.

As for bush fires, i think Australia (the World actually) should somehow start a massive reforestation campaign.

              Regardless of whether we mined or not, still the electricity consumption does have negative effects on different areas that is also why I agree with your opinion, and the excessive usage of electricity coupled with different machines and technology for mining it is much more of a headache than to reduce the pollution. Basically it would also result your idea into adapting renewable resource of energy which is up until now scientists keep researching ways to achieve it. For example is the nuclear source which is commonly heard, but the problem is that, it is like a double edge sword, which is if the government officially supports its usage and provides funding it is also way too risky and could also potentially harm the environment. In the end we could just only bare with it and keep on transcending and researching new ways which has  lesser harm with great benefits, but I think it is quiet impossible as of now. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a noble thought! Even though bitcoin mining uses a very small fraction of world energy consumption, but we need to start taking baby steps! I believe the only way to make bitcoin mining sustainable and to reduce carbon emission, is to move to alternative energy source. So solar power is a very good alternative for all small bitcoin miners. Yes, it is expensive but also it is a one time cost! Usually each solar panel comes with 10 years lifetime so the investment towards solar panel also gets a bigger payback period. As of now, I don't see any other viable options to make mining sustainable. let me know your thoughts!

in my opinion bitcoin mining is not only the cause of that pollution maybe it just adds a little because it also use electricity
there already a lot of pollution in the world before bitcoin is created it's also increasing because power demands continue to rise
the main cause of pollution is the new building more population that use a lot of electricity
if you want to change maybe start from yourself and show us some examples like stop using gadgets and devices that use electricity

Electricity is the most important problem for making mining sustainable. Electricity consumption is already a general problem. Bitcoin mining needs to be done with renewable energy sources. Bitcoin production is also very expensive equipment.

I just answered what you state in your post, and you link the fires in Amazonia, Australia and the lack of snow with Bitcoin mining? We all got the impression that you thinking is going in that direction.


Please take into consideration that I and other members of the forum cannot read your thoughts and that we are only responding to what you wrote.


You completely ignore the fact that almost all major mining farms in China use hydroelectric power, and that carbon emissions from mining is so insignificant that it's not worth discussing it at all. So-called experts and scientists who make some kind of calculations are mostly ignorant or paid to create a false image of Bitcoin. I believe more in what o_e_l_e_o post, then into all their nonsense.

Sichuan beckons power-hungry cryptocurrency miners to the home of the pandas with cheap and plentiful hydroelectricity