Topic: Regulations on proof of work might be coming - page 2. (Read 1055 times)

The world has abundant energy. Covering just 1% of the area of just the Sahara desert with solar panels which we can manufacture today would generate enough energy to meet the needs of the entire world. Note that is energy, not just electricity. Enough energy to completely replace coal, oil, natural gas, etc. It could be done with a one off cost of around $5 trillion. That's less than the increase in the Fed's balance sheet over the last 3 years. That's less than what has been spent on bailing out banks around the world over the last decade.

There is no lack of energy resources. There is a lack of a will to spend money harnessing it, because our politicians are bought out by oil companies, banks, military industrial complex, and others, who are busy funneling the money in to their own pockets instead.

This is an absolutely moronic statement. If all PoW mining stopped today, global electricity usage would drop by a fraction of one percent. By next month, that saved fraction would already have been used up and more by the general growth and expansion of global electricity usage from other sectors which is continually happening. Banning PoW is completely inconsequential to global electricity use.

True but they never needed an excuse to create and spread FUD about bitcoin in the past 13 years. If anything the Ethereum's eventual demise would help put an end to some of the FUD they've been spreading. This shitcoin has already gotten dumped nearly 30% over the past 10 days.
What I'm mostly curious to see is the next roll back or coin freeze we see in this centralized platform.

Bitcoin community refusal to evolve btc to become energy efficient, is the problem.
Bitcoin community IGNORING the FACTs:
this world's is lacking in energy resources.
the increase in rolling blackouts
the price increases for anyone unlucky enough to be on the same grid as btc miners.

Bitcoin miners shoving 2 or 3 extra countries energy resource drain onto a single country or State's power grid is not even a pretense at sustainable.

PoW will be banned , because there is no choice, PoW gets the energy or the People get the energy.
It is either People get to live or PoW gets to live, which is why PoW is going to die.

BTC community could be brainstorming ways to regulate lower power consumption for PoW,
or since btc cultists don't like PoS, come up with another algo, that you do like that solves the energy issue.

But instead you waste BTC remaining time worrying about ethereum whom is in no danger from a PoW ban.

BTC community might want to start worrying about BTC PoW, because your house is on fire and your time is short.
The US President could end PoW mining in the US, at the earliest in late November , and what will btc community do ,
whine about how ethereum is unaffected.  

isnt it funny how a guy known to not care about bitcoin and has no clue how PoW could be regulated wants to make people look at... the deisel spend of DoD tanks

silly people that want us to discuss vegan protestors, DOD tank operators .. have not spent a single day to even research
SEC, CFTC, EPA OR FERC..actual risks
not caring to see what their remits are, their powers or their jurisdictional coverage

and just wanting to look at social drama instead.. oh them silly people, when will they learn to do proper research

Agreed and I have a similar attitude on this. It is a comedy show. However, the argument is Ethereum's transfer to proof of stake might be used as an attack against Bitcoin to create fud and pressure the government to create very strict regulations on mining which can also be used to attack any proof of work coin.

I believe SEC or FED or any government organization in the world could try to stop or ban anything in crypto as they want but they need to realize that it's decentralized and even if you want to ban it in one nation, it will continue from another nation.

You may think that if USA bans it, it would hurt the price a lot but China did it long time ago and we are fine, and China isn't a small nation neither, they had so many investors with so much money, at least as much as USA has, and we are still fine. So, ETH not being liked by governments is not a big deal for us, the reality is that we shouldn't really be worried about such a thing at all, it's fine, they can try to dislike it as much as they want.

Judging by the way the Greenpeace campaign is gaining ground, this could result in a noticeable impact if they continue to press on it. Being that btc is not very favorable to the government, it won't be hard for them to start looking at different ways to enforce regulations and mostly support the Greenpeace agenda.
The way things are right now and with the recent eth merge (no thanks to them), the pressure will be on btc. eventually, it may happen.  

Yeah, that's when it becomes difficult to quantify, hence my statement of "depending on which source you read". I've previously spoken about some studies which simply multiply the electricity usage of bitcoin by the average carbon dioxide production per unit of electricity to reach their value of how much CO₂ bitcoin is responsible for. But from other reports we know that this is inaccurate, as bitcoin uses far more renewable energy than average, and so its carbon dioxide production per unit of electricity will be far lower.

Reports can twist things, and choose which metrics to report or how they arrive at those metrics to fit their narrative. But even the most biased reports giving the worst possible outlook for bitcoin's energy usage still show that it is utterly inconsequential on a global scale, and doing almost anything else, from eating one less serving of beef a month to swapping your light bulbs for energy efficient ones, will more than offset your personal usage of bitcoin.

My bad. Yes, seemed like something's wrong. I'm searching for an article that describes in detail the percentage of U.S. DoD spending and environmental footprint, but I don't find much stuff. Probably because I don't know how to properly read articles like: https://theconversation.com/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-as-many-as-140-countries-shrinking-this-war-machine-is-a-must-119269. I'm not specialized nor do I study the energy sector at all.

With half of the hash rate being generated from renewables?

Well yes, but the military industrial complex bribes our politicians. Bitcoin doesn't. So they get a free pass despite being the single largest consumer of oil in the world. Perhaps rather than regulating proof of work we should regulate illegal wars?

The article says that of the energy they consume, 70% is used for movement. Not that they use 70% of all the world's energy. Even for our grossly overinflated and unnecessary military, that would be a bit much.

You have confused your units in your post. A megaton is a million tons. The article says the US military generates 60 megatons of CO₂, or 60 million tons, but not 60 million megatons. Depending on which source you read, bitcoin mining generates around 20 megatons.

Isn't it funny that the same people who're about to regulate Proof-of-Work (whatever the hell that means) do ignore the carbon emission from national defense? From an old article, the U.S military emits more CO2 than any other activity. They're consuming about 70% of the world's energy, just for moving and utilizing their equipment. About 60 million megatons of CO2.

How many does bitcoin mining do? Less than 100,000 megatons? And it's a self-incentive to renewable sources? Yeah. Who's gonna think of the environment, right?

Don't forget that ETC's hashrate has gone up by 300% since the merge, other altcoins have seen even larger increases in hashrate, ETHPoW has been forked and continues to use some hashrate, and so on. The merge has achieved nothing in terms of electricity consumption, it just lets Ethereum play even more in to the hands of centralized regulators. I suppose that goes well with their new centralized PoS protocol.

It's almost as if bitcoin wasn't created to submit itself to the will of governments. China have banned bitcoin what, 9 times? And yet still have ~20% of the global hashrate? Bitcoin will survive this regulation, as it will survive all regulation. And at some point in the future when bitcoin mining is essentially 100% renewable, then regulations such as this won't matter.

Funny,  
Topic is Regulations on proof of work might be coming

Instead of brainstorming on how BTC PoW could survive the coming Worldwide PoW ban ,(It won't survive by the way.)

all that anyone is talking about is Ethereum a Proof of Stake coin that could care less about regulations on PoW.

While all the btc supporters are worried about ethereum price,

BTC just fell to ~$18K, with no real bottom since VC money is drying up faster than Lake Mead.

 

FYI:
BTC Price Dec 2022 =>~$14K
BTC Price Dec 2023=>~$8K
BTC Price Dec 2024=>~$0 ,
*because Proof of Waste nonsense was banned worldwide after the Texas Power grid Collapse in 2024.
A Massive Power Grid Collapse in Texas during extreme weather could kill ~7 million people.
Replacement of the transformers from a grid collapse would take 2 to 5 years.

I believe Ethereum might have also made the situation worse for itself. Because if Ethereum's supporters theorizes that institutional investors will choose Ethereum over Bitcoin because "climate change concerns", they might not be reading into what the government could do.





There's a probability that Ethereum core developers shot themselves, after throwing the most basic advantage they had over their competitors.

for bitcoiners. wondering or worried that eth will out pace bitcoin.. dont worry
dont worry about eth market cap or eth price pumping in comparison to btc
eth production cost is 100%+ less if all validators CPU signed blocks
knowing its custodian pooled stake its 10,000x cheaper to create new eth.
the price of eth is going to go down.. by alot. this slow eth price drop is just the start of the new correction to the new low eth price stable level

thus the market cap of eth is going down.
and the future pumps of eth will be based on a new low by 2023-2024 where any pumps will have its monthly highs that are lower then todays low
2022 2023 2024
_/\__                 $1.5k
        \                $800
         \____/\     $100

if bitcoin was to change to a PoS the underlying value (minimum mining cost) also drops meaning the price would go down.

You mean the organization that was paid $5 million by Ripple to spread FUD about bitcoin.

It depends on whether in the weeks during 2023 or 2024 that ETH is pumping or has any pumping potential or not. Otherwise Elon doesn't give a shit.

The shitcoin with biggest market cap was using 99.97% less energy before ETH was created and replaced it as the biggest centralized shitcoin with highest fake market cap

LOL

It makes sense for rich and wealthy people who have some sort of power to hate bitcoin because it gives freedom to normal people like you and me, which means that they will do their best to get that freedom out the door as soon as they can.

Doesn't mean that they would be capable of doing that, just because ETH moved to proof of stake doesn't mean that bitcoin will do that too, as long as we stand on our ground, even with regulations we are going to make it work and that means maybe it's not going to be so simple but it will certainly be something we could keep going without a hitch just because they wanted it. Unity is the only thing we need, and as long as we are united, there isn't any government that can stop us.

LAUGHABLE!

Ethereum has actually DEVOLVED into something lower, like the other cheap blockchains competing against it for the same use cases. What Ethereum had that its competitors couldn't have is a self boot-strapped, mature, Proof of Work consensus layer. It's NOT EASY to reach that level. It was an advantage in the most basic level, but the Ethereum developers threw that away.

It also appears that there are some organizations similar to Green Peace that are also beginning to use Ethereum's transfer to proof of stake as an attack on bitcoin. There might be powerful people who hate bitcoin and they will do everything to attack it. This might discourage institutional investors and certainly what would their next choice of coin be if they want to invest in the cryptospace?

Elon Musk will buy Ethereum on 2023 or 2024.



The long-awaited #EthereumMerge is here: the world’s 2nd largest cryptocurrency now uses 99.95% less energy, dramatically cutting its climate pollution!

Now it’s time for @Bitcoin to change.

Source https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa/status/1570408606180450311

this is not meant as FUD or to scare, but its deeper thinking about the plays which governments can do..

firstly bitcoin as an asset currency, is protected by property law..  whereby there are limitations on regulators telling businesses and users what they can do with their/our property.. because yes businesses and users can sue government if regulations cause adverse business/personal loss..

however if there is a switch to where bitcoin is regulated as a "commodity" under the premiss that bitcoin is a raw material used to make other products (tokenisation of sidechain units of measure)

then regulators can push further, limiting how much produce can be made by 'farms'. how much energy and materials farm can use. and a heck of alot of other things
(agriculture is very much under the thumb of commodity quota's, regulations and environmental limits)

however current drafts are not suggesting to go to extremes right now..
governments are not requesting a PoS change direct/now/soon. they are going to do a few things first and if each fails then go extreme

first ask asic miners to shift their power supplier/bill provider to one that are more 'green'

next request the larger asic farms to move to regions that are green and accepting of new large usage demand

next restrict businesses that use excessive energy to only have a quota amount of electric to contract to limiting over-use,

and if not, .. if all those have not helped ease the minds of government..
if bitcoin was to use more then a fair share of green and/or doesnt stop facilitating the continuation of fossil usage..
.. then possibly they will do PoS push
using tactics already done in crypto..
EG a (NY agreement+UAHF(yes H not S occured) ploy) using regulations with the bitcoin businesses. to mandate a new upgrade which exchanges, merchants and corporate development teams have to push and accept a PoS fork as BTC and the pow native version as an altcoin

where the upgrade would follow the ethereum tactic
..
lets discuss that last extreme.. of a POS push scenario
again this is not meant as FUD or scare tactics. its about risk awareness of extreme possibilities. and yes it is a small. but real possibility. to be aware of to then think of ways to mitigate and limits its ability to occur

and yes regulators can push all the businesses of crypto to comply.
- regulators can push employees of:
    brink, chaincode labs, blockstream, github to comply or have penalties
    (a dev push to mandate code change can be pushed)
    (as did DCG(blockstream) in 2017)

- regulators can push MSB's:
    exchanges, merchants, custodial wallets to comply or have penalties
    (to only service/fullnode/archive  certain network)
    (as US regulators did to exchanges not service monero, liquid, LN)
    (much like DCG(NY agreement) pushed in 2017)

to implement the code.. well thats like what ETH did
they first need to mandate 2 upgrades

an upgrade that simply sets a future date when PoW difficulty formulae changes to just exponentially get harder no matter the speed of block solves.. . where it makes PoW unsustainable to maintain after programmed trigger date

then during that delay period. mandate another upgrade to fork to PoS on said trigger date. where merchants/exchanges, and corporate dev teams only accept, view and maintain the PoS chains protocol and call the PoS protocol btc

obviously users will just follow suite. after all no point holding onto a blockchain that does not solve blocks fast and is not seen by exchanges/merchants. meaning people cant make transactions or spend value on said forgotten chain

so though the chances of such a thing happening may be minimal. if politicians see positive "greening" of crypto. we still need to be risk aware
due to the actual central points of failure that can be used against us. these being:

35% of mining in america
reliance on licenced and regulated exchanges
most prominent exchanges are american licenced/regulated
everyone follows one reference client sourced from one service(github) and maintained by mostly employees of 3 corporations who are child companies of a DCG portfolio

we really need to start thinking about mitigating these central points of failure to not make it that easy to cause regulators to push to extremes(if they should choose to)