^ Can't say I know enough about what's going on in Texas, I think it's a tragedy but I also think it's a case of mismanagement and poor governance, and a direct result of storm damage (or failure of storm resistance, which it knowingly did not fix for a decade at least apparently).
So them Texans had better start electing better leaders or pushing for better means to distribute energy or fix the storm damage. Blaming it on miners is at best going to remove them from the equation, but that doesn't mean they won't simply be replaced by other commercial consumers, nor will it mean redistributing power to where it's needed.
The problem is a loss of power generation capacity. The miners won't have been invited over if there wasn't enough capacity in the first place.
Topic: Why exactly is Bitcoin clinging to PoW? - page 3. (Read 1790 times)
Which in China , they decided it was easier to ban bitcoin PoW mining than regulate it.
That's their loss. I mean, China. The miners will simply move somewhere else and we are seeing it happening now.
The power grid operators don't care if you are looking for aliens, solving optical goloumb rulers, finding a cure for cancer, calculating large prime numbers, growing plants indoors or mining for any coins. If you use power and pay for it, then you should be okay, doesn't matter what you do.
Miners will simply migrate (or at least the equipment does) to wherever it makes sense for them, usually that means where it's cheaper.
And the earlier point , was the miners have been moving to Texas,
https://news.yahoo.com/displaced-chinese-bitcoin-miners-flocking-060215932.html
and Texas Power Grid operators are now warning of rolling blackouts.
Their is your clue.
FYI:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/18/texas-promotes-master-plan-lure-worlds-crypto-billionaires-forced/amp/
Quote
“We have governors like Greg Abbott in Texas who are promoting mining,” he told CNBC.
“It is going to become a real industry in the United States, which is going to be incredible.
“Texas not only has the cheapest electricity in the US but some of the cheapest in the globe,” he said.
“It’s also very easy to start up a mining company.”
Argo Blockchain CEO Peter Wall recently told Bitcoin Magazine: "We chose West Texas because it offers us some of the lowest electricity rates in the world and the majority is from renewable sources, namely wind and solar.”
But there has been a backlash.
Critics have pointed out that Texas’s power grid failed during a winter storm earlier this year and that the significant drain on resources could lead to future blackouts.
More than four million people were left without power, some for days, and 111 people died.
“It is going to become a real industry in the United States, which is going to be incredible.
“Texas not only has the cheapest electricity in the US but some of the cheapest in the globe,” he said.
“It’s also very easy to start up a mining company.”
Argo Blockchain CEO Peter Wall recently told Bitcoin Magazine: "We chose West Texas because it offers us some of the lowest electricity rates in the world and the majority is from renewable sources, namely wind and solar.”
But there has been a backlash.
Critics have pointed out that Texas’s power grid failed during a winter storm earlier this year and that the significant drain on resources could lead to future blackouts.
More than four million people were left without power, some for days, and 111 people died.
Which in China , they decided it was easier to ban bitcoin PoW mining than regulate it.
That's their loss. I mean, China. The miners will simply move somewhere else and we are seeing it happening now.
The power grid operators don't care if you are looking for aliens, solving optical goloumb rulers, finding a cure for cancer, calculating large prime numbers, growing plants indoors or mining for any coins. If you use power and pay for it, then you should be okay, doesn't matter what you do.
Miners will simply migrate (or at least the equipment does) to wherever it makes sense for them, usually that means where it's cheaper.
Genuine question, wouldn’t large mining farms avoid regions where electricity is in high demand, and therefore have higher electricity rates, making it unprofitable for mining? Plus electricity generated is only “wasted” if there’s a surplus and the surplus isn’t used.
Excess Energy is never wasted, that is a myth.
Texas energy rate prices are lower than average, which is why miners are flocking there.
Most Power Grids are interconnected, they have to maintain a % of power to keep their grid stable,
when their usage is lower, they sell the so called excess energy to the other grids. (Their is No wasted energy.)
So their is no massive amount of excess energy in the grid system.
But in regions with low demand for electricity, don’t the power stations regulate the output themselves, which could lower profit? Wouldn’t industrial POW miners be welcome consumers for those power stations because it makes them generate the output to their capacity? I don’t know why some people believe this is bad. It’s simply commerce.
Actually in the US, power plants and power generators hand over control of their output to Power Grid Operators.
They do this to avoid a monopoly.
https://peguru.com/2018/09/who-controls-the-power-grid-in-usa/
https://www.anthropoceneinstitute.com/science/grid/
Quote
Grid operators constantly monitor and manage the demand, supply, reserve margins, and power mix to ensure that you have immediate access to power in your home or business. What is the reserve margin? It is a specified backup generation capacity that can compensate for potential forecasting errors, unexpected power plant shutdowns or weather events
The grid operator uses a three-phase planning process to ensure that power plants produce the right amount of electricity to meet electric demand at any given time. Electricity supply must balance demand at all times in order to avoid a blackout or other cascading problem. The production of electricity is adjusted in 15 minute intervals to account for demand changes throughout the day. For this reason, there are three main types of power plants: baseload, load-following, and peakers.
Baseload power plants meet the minimal power needed by the grid and are designed to be on most of the time. Their capacity factor, or percent of time operational, is above 80%. They are only shut down or curtailed when performing maintenance or repair. Baseload power is the cheapest type of generation and usually supplied by coal fired and nuclear power plants because they can provide large amounts of power (up to 1.6 GW).
Load-following plants, also known as intermediate load plants, are typically combined-cycled gas fired power plants, which have a high thermal efficiency of up to 58%. They have a gas turbine and a waste heat recovery system to capture the gas turbine’s exhaust to drive a steam turbine that produces additional electricity. Generation from load-following plants can be ramped up and down as needed. Their capacity factor is usually less than 30% of the time. But they are more complex to maintain and more expensive to operate/
The power plant of “last resort” are peaker plants. They are turned on for even shorter periods of time to meet extremely high high demands, for example, when air conditioning is used during hot days. Due to their low capacity factor, which could be as low as a few hours for the entire year, they the most expensive type of generation.
How is power bought and sold in the US?
Electricity is bought and re-sold on the wholesale power market before finally reaching the final consumer. With the exception of Texas, this market is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) due to the interstate nature of the grid.
The wholesale market is open to utility owned suppliers and marketers, non-utility independent power producers (IPPs), and excess generation from traditional vertically-operated utilities. Furthermore, participants in the wholesale market do not necessary have own generation capacity or serve the end-user. Much like other commodity markets, individual traders (power marketers) buy electricity on the market to re-sell it.
Once the electricity is procured from the wholesale market, it is sold to the final consumer through the retail market. In states where full retail competition exists, customers may choose from either their incumbent utility supplier or from an array of new competitive suppliers
How do grid operators work together?
Within the regional wholesale markets, grid operators organize under a regional transmission organization (RTO) or independent system operator (ISO). These entities serve as a third-party independent operator of the transmission system to control, monitor, and coordinate the operations of a grid.
About 60% of the U.S. electric power supply is managed by RTOs. Ten Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) operate bulk electric power systems across much of North America.
These operators ensure that no preference is given in the dispatch of a utility-owned generator over a competitive generator. Grid operators must be certified under the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
The grid operator uses a three-phase planning process to ensure that power plants produce the right amount of electricity to meet electric demand at any given time. Electricity supply must balance demand at all times in order to avoid a blackout or other cascading problem. The production of electricity is adjusted in 15 minute intervals to account for demand changes throughout the day. For this reason, there are three main types of power plants: baseload, load-following, and peakers.
Baseload power plants meet the minimal power needed by the grid and are designed to be on most of the time. Their capacity factor, or percent of time operational, is above 80%. They are only shut down or curtailed when performing maintenance or repair. Baseload power is the cheapest type of generation and usually supplied by coal fired and nuclear power plants because they can provide large amounts of power (up to 1.6 GW).
Load-following plants, also known as intermediate load plants, are typically combined-cycled gas fired power plants, which have a high thermal efficiency of up to 58%. They have a gas turbine and a waste heat recovery system to capture the gas turbine’s exhaust to drive a steam turbine that produces additional electricity. Generation from load-following plants can be ramped up and down as needed. Their capacity factor is usually less than 30% of the time. But they are more complex to maintain and more expensive to operate/
The power plant of “last resort” are peaker plants. They are turned on for even shorter periods of time to meet extremely high high demands, for example, when air conditioning is used during hot days. Due to their low capacity factor, which could be as low as a few hours for the entire year, they the most expensive type of generation.
How is power bought and sold in the US?
Electricity is bought and re-sold on the wholesale power market before finally reaching the final consumer. With the exception of Texas, this market is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) due to the interstate nature of the grid.
The wholesale market is open to utility owned suppliers and marketers, non-utility independent power producers (IPPs), and excess generation from traditional vertically-operated utilities. Furthermore, participants in the wholesale market do not necessary have own generation capacity or serve the end-user. Much like other commodity markets, individual traders (power marketers) buy electricity on the market to re-sell it.
Once the electricity is procured from the wholesale market, it is sold to the final consumer through the retail market. In states where full retail competition exists, customers may choose from either their incumbent utility supplier or from an array of new competitive suppliers
How do grid operators work together?
Within the regional wholesale markets, grid operators organize under a regional transmission organization (RTO) or independent system operator (ISO). These entities serve as a third-party independent operator of the transmission system to control, monitor, and coordinate the operations of a grid.
About 60% of the U.S. electric power supply is managed by RTOs. Ten Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) operate bulk electric power systems across much of North America.
These operators ensure that no preference is given in the dispatch of a utility-owned generator over a competitive generator. Grid operators must be certified under the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
Since PoW miners require 24x7 power, they draw down a large % of the Baseload power plants ,
which in turn means more Intermediate Load plants, are running longer,
and that when weather extremes happen, the “last resort” are peaker plants which if unable to meet the increased demand,
that is when the power grid operators start rolling blackouts to avoid the whole grid collapsing and transformers burning out.
Bitcoin Miners draw such large amounts of power in small regions , they totally remove a large % of the energy generated by the Baseload power plants.
If the Number of Bitcoin Mining devices were regulated to limit their number per power grid, then their power drain could be managed better by the power grid operators thus avoiding the rolling blackouts that have to happen to protect the grid.
* Regulating the number of ASICS per grid would have huge impact on Miners Profits as further separates locations increases their costs. Which is one reason Ethereum dev decided to avoid the potential coming government regulations by switching to PoS.*
A lot of people in the bitcoin community want to cry fud and ignore the power drain of PoW,
It is not fud, when the Power Grid operators start rolling blackouts, which has already happen in China and Iran,
which is why they started banning mining.
Power Grid operators only concern is protecting the Power grids, they don't care about bitcoins , altcoins or any of our opinions on algorithms, so the pretense that they are involved in fud is totally baseless, all they care about is a functioning power grid.
It is like this, Bitcoiners don't have to switch to PoS,
but they will have to do something to combat the energy drain they are placing on the power grids,
before the Governments step in and make the decision for them.
Which in China , they decided it was easier to ban bitcoin PoW mining than regulate it.
Genuine question, wouldn’t large mining farms avoid regions where electricity is in high demand, and therefore have higher electricity rates, making it unprofitable for mining? Plus electricity generated is only “wasted” if there’s a surplus and the surplus isn’t used.
Excess Energy is never wasted, that is a myth.
Texas energy rate prices are lower than average, which is why miners are flocking there.
Most Power Grids are interconnected, they have to maintain a % of power to keep their grid stable,
when their usage is lower, they sell the so called excess energy to the other grids. (Their is No wasted energy.)
So their is no massive amount of excess energy in the grid system.
But in regions with low demand for electricity, don’t the power stations regulate the output themselves, which could lower profit? Wouldn’t industrial POW miners be welcome consumers for those power stations because it makes them generate the output to their capacity? I don’t know why some people believe this is bad. It’s simply commerce.
PoW also makes Bitcoin a literal energy-to-money conversion machine, and having a system that can directly convert energy into money is a very powerful economic tool, especially over the coming decades as the world works on moving to renewables. You don't enforce renewable usage, Bitcoin naturally encourages renewable energy production because it makes the spread of renewable energy more economically viable - I should say it makes energy production in general more viable, but as the world is trying to switch to renewables this naturally favors the spread of renewables.
I am not in favor of moving away from PoW, but this argument is nonsense. PoW miners need more than electricity, they also need ASIC machines that require technical expertise to design and build. ASIC machines require specialized chips that are in scarce supply.
Even "renewable" energy costs money to generate via building the medium of "capturing" the energy, such as solar panels, or windmills.
Probably most importantly, someone who has a large excess of energy, "renewable" or otherwise, can sell said energy to consumers of energy, as electric utilities do today. People are willing to pay for electricity because they need it to power things such as their stove, oven, lights, air conditioning, computers, and other devices that require electricity to work.
You didn't in any way invalidate my statement that you bolded. As I said, Bitcoin is an energy-to-money conversion machine. This feature makes Bitcoin profoundly important for spreading renewable energy production around the world. Not sure what you were trying to argue in your comment, but you weren't arguing against this fact of Bitcoin. Also I don't think you realize what "excess of energy" means - it specifically means there is no one to sell the energy to, which makes that statement by you, in fact, nonsense.
Someone who is mining bitcoin is not going to wait and only use "excess" electricity, they are going to do their best to get "priority" access to electricity. As bitcoin miners become more efficient, current ASICs will generate less revenue, so it is important for miners to have as close to 100% uptime as they can.
Bitcoin provides an economy for that excess of energy, it also allows energy to be produced in places where there is no energy demand at all, but perhaps there will be in the future. It also allows new ways to produce energy to become economically viable when they normally wouldn't be. It not only fixes the excess energy problem, but it allows for the growth of new energy all over, and the development of new energy producing technologies. PoW is a truly powerful feature of Bitcoin.
There is already a source of near-unlimited, cheap electricity available. It is called nuclear power. PoW is going to consume cheap electricity today. If there is a means to produce electricity that is expensive today, but might be cheap tomorrow, PoW is not going to consume that electricity until it is cheap.
Genuine question, wouldn’t large mining farms avoid regions where electricity is in high demand, and therefore have higher electricity rates, making it unprofitable for mining? Plus electricity generated is only “wasted” if there’s a surplus and the surplus isn’t used.
Excess Energy is never wasted, that is a myth.
Texas energy rate prices are lower than average, which is why miners are flocking there.
Most Power Grids are interconnected, they have to maintain a % of power to keep their grid stable,
when their usage is lower, they sell the so called excess energy to the other grids. (Their is No wasted energy.)
So their is no massive amount of excess energy in the grid system.
Also I don't think you realize what "excess of energy" means - it specifically means there is no one to sell the energy to,
I think most bitcoiners don't realize that when heat waves or subzero temps arrive, their is NO EXCESS ENERGY!
https://news.trust.org/item/20210616152609-rkr1c
Quote
Searing heat across the U.S. Southwest and soaring electricity demand for air conditioners this week are prompting grid operators in
Texas and California to warn consumers about energy conservation to avoid outages.
Texas and California to warn consumers about energy conservation to avoid outages.
Which is why Proof of Waste is so dangerous , wasting energy when a power grid is maxed out ,
at best creates rolling blackouts,
at worst crashes a power grid and destroys the transformers,
Once that happens and a major grid is down for ~2 years to repair all those blown transformers,
expect bitcoin PoW mining to be permabanned around the world.
Not a question of if, it has become a question of how soon especially for Texas.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/18/texas-power-outages-ercot/
Quote
Texas was "seconds and minutes" away from catastrophic months long blackouts, officials say
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-texas-is-becoming-a-mecca-for-bitcoin-miners-2021-05-04
Quote
How Texas Is Becoming A Mecca For Bitcoin Miners
Genuine question, wouldn’t large mining farms avoid regions where electricity is in high demand, and therefore have higher electricity rates, making it unprofitable for mining? Plus electricity generated is only “wasted” if there’s a surplus and the surplus isn’t used.
Also I don't think you realize what "excess of energy" means - it specifically means there is no one to sell the energy to,
I think most bitcoiners don't realize that when heat waves or subzero temps arrive, their is NO EXCESS ENERGY!
When there is a source of power far enough away that there are no people ... and no easy way to deliver that energy to the rest of the people ... I think that's what they mean. If you are talking about cities, then of course, there are people there and energy requirements and all the energy is used by that city and the price of energy will be too high for any miner so the miner will move their equipment away from the higher priced energy and go to a lower priced energy.
expect bitcoin PoW mining to be permabanned around the world.
I actually don't see that happening ever. Or maybe I am just blind and can't see it. What I see is more renewable sources of energy appear around the world whereever they are. And how does one ban mining? Oh, you mean, like China maybe? When you have a bunch of people with 1 device in their home mining ... it's going to be difficult to ban that.
Also I don't think you realize what "excess of energy" means - it specifically means there is no one to sell the energy to,
I think most bitcoiners don't realize that when heat waves or subzero temps arrive, their is NO EXCESS ENERGY!
https://news.trust.org/item/20210616152609-rkr1c
Quote
Searing heat across the U.S. Southwest and soaring electricity demand for air conditioners this week are prompting grid operators in
Texas and California to warn consumers about energy conservation to avoid outages.
Texas and California to warn consumers about energy conservation to avoid outages.
Which is why Proof of Waste is so dangerous , wasting energy when a power grid is maxed out ,
at best creates rolling blackouts,
at worst crashes a power grid and destroys the transformers,
Once that happens and a major grid is down for ~2 years to repair all those blown transformers,
expect bitcoin PoW mining to be permabanned around the world.
Not a question of if, it has become a question of how soon especially for Texas.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/18/texas-power-outages-ercot/
Quote
Texas was "seconds and minutes" away from catastrophic months long blackouts, officials say
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-texas-is-becoming-a-mecca-for-bitcoin-miners-2021-05-04
Quote
How Texas Is Becoming A Mecca For Bitcoin Miners
~
It also allows new ways to produce energy to become economically viable when they normally wouldn't be.
It also allows new ways to produce energy to become economically viable when they normally wouldn't be.
Keep in mind this only applies exactly if the energy sources are large enough to generate enough power for making a decent amount of hashrate to bother with mining Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin's difficulty is huge, smaller energy sources could power the PoW of some altcoins like Bcash, Doge and LTC.
But otherwise what you said is largely correct.
PoW also makes Bitcoin a literal energy-to-money conversion machine, and having a system that can directly convert energy into money is a very powerful economic tool, especially over the coming decades as the world works on moving to renewables. You don't enforce renewable usage, Bitcoin naturally encourages renewable energy production because it makes the spread of renewable energy more economically viable - I should say it makes energy production in general more viable, but as the world is trying to switch to renewables this naturally favors the spread of renewables.
I am not in favor of moving away from PoW, but this argument is nonsense. PoW miners need more than electricity, they also need ASIC machines that require technical expertise to design and build. ASIC machines require specialized chips that are in scarce supply.
Even "renewable" energy costs money to generate via building the medium of "capturing" the energy, such as solar panels, or windmills.
Probably most importantly, someone who has a large excess of energy, "renewable" or otherwise, can sell said energy to consumers of energy, as electric utilities do today. People are willing to pay for electricity because they need it to power things such as their stove, oven, lights, air conditioning, computers, and other devices that require electricity to work.
You didn't in any way invalidate my statement that you bolded. As I said, Bitcoin is an energy-to-money conversion machine. This feature makes Bitcoin profoundly important for spreading renewable energy production around the world. Not sure what you were trying to argue in your comment, but you weren't arguing against this fact of Bitcoin. Also I don't think you realize what "excess of energy" means - it specifically means there is no one to sell the energy to, which makes that statement by you, in fact, nonsense.
Bitcoin provides an economy for that excess of energy, it also allows energy to be produced in places where there is no energy demand at all, but perhaps there will be in the future. It also allows new ways to produce energy to become economically viable when they normally wouldn't be. It not only fixes the excess energy problem, but it allows for the growth of new energy all over, and the development of new energy producing technologies. PoW is a truly powerful feature of Bitcoin.
PoW also makes Bitcoin a literal energy-to-money conversion machine, and having a system that can directly convert energy into money is a very powerful economic tool, especially over the coming decades as the world works on moving to renewables. You don't enforce renewable usage, Bitcoin naturally encourages renewable energy production because it makes the spread of renewable energy more economically viable - I should say it makes energy production in general more viable, but as the world is trying to switch to renewables this naturally favors the spread of renewables.
I am not in favor of moving away from PoW, but this argument is nonsense. PoW miners need more than electricity, they also need ASIC machines that require technical expertise to design and build. ASIC machines require specialized chips that are in scarce supply.
Even "renewable" energy costs money to generate via building the medium of "capturing" the energy, such as solar panels, or windmills.
Probably most importantly, someone who has a large excess of energy, "renewable" or otherwise, can sell said energy to consumers of energy, as electric utilities do today. People are willing to pay for electricity because they need it to power things such as their stove, oven, lights, air conditioning, computers, and other devices that require electricity to work.
Bitcoin mining is going to renewable energy on it's own, "naturally" or organically, simply because that's the general direction miners will take if they can't have "normal" power at a price they are willing to pay. Not including the thieves that steal electricity, that's a different issue.
The “green transition” is also not only “about Bitcoin”, but mainly about how electricity is generated. Elon Musk criticizes that Bitcoin is not “green” enough, but if not given a choice, Bitcoin will be green, like if the world is not given a choice between fossil fuels and green alternatives.
First of all. I don't agree with MarsMan and I think what he is doing is straightforward market manipulation.
But one thing is o/c right in this whole mess. Proof of Work can't be Bitcoins destination. First of all one question is if it really still fulfills its function for decentralization. Is a system truly decentralized or distributed when there is already just a handful of groups that would just need to agree on common terms?
Energy might be another factor and important as well, so a less power hungry solution might be great, on the other side it could be very healthy to the renewables industry if all miners would be forced to use only green energy, since this would generate a significant amount of money flowing into those industries. But I don't see any technical way to really enforce that.
I am a long term user since Bitcoins inception, but I stopped following the development for some years now and hold most of my assets I bought for a few cents years ago and just do some trading from time to time. So I might be not up to date if there are efforts to move away from PoW. Can someone give me an update on this? If Bitcoin is not considering to move and evolve, what are your takes on this and why would one cling to much to PoW, just b/c of the hard fork it requires? Or are the alternatives still not mature enough?
But one thing is o/c right in this whole mess. Proof of Work can't be Bitcoins destination. First of all one question is if it really still fulfills its function for decentralization. Is a system truly decentralized or distributed when there is already just a handful of groups that would just need to agree on common terms?
Energy might be another factor and important as well, so a less power hungry solution might be great, on the other side it could be very healthy to the renewables industry if all miners would be forced to use only green energy, since this would generate a significant amount of money flowing into those industries. But I don't see any technical way to really enforce that.
I am a long term user since Bitcoins inception, but I stopped following the development for some years now and hold most of my assets I bought for a few cents years ago and just do some trading from time to time. So I might be not up to date if there are efforts to move away from PoW. Can someone give me an update on this? If Bitcoin is not considering to move and evolve, what are your takes on this and why would one cling to much to PoW, just b/c of the hard fork it requires? Or are the alternatives still not mature enough?
Not sure why you think Bitcoin is "clinging" to PoW. PoW is not a bad thing. It is a rather uninformed take to think PoW is bad and something that must be moved away from. There only needs to be one proof of work chain, and Bitcoin is it.
PoW provides Bitcoin with global-level security.
It allows Bitcoin to be highly decentralized and have its security rooted in physical reality.
It separates the minters of coins from the owners of coins (for example, PoS is a "the rich get richer" system by making the holders be the minters of new coins, not saying that is bad or good, but Bitcoin separates the two which is a nice difference).
PoW also makes Bitcoin a literal energy-to-money conversion machine, and having a system that can directly convert energy into money is a very powerful economic tool, especially over the coming decades as the world works on moving to renewables. You don't enforce renewable usage, Bitcoin naturally encourages renewable energy production because it makes the spread of renewable energy more economically viable - I should say it makes energy production in general more viable, but as the world is trying to switch to renewables this naturally favors the spread of renewables.
So, no, there are no efforts to move Bitcoin away from PoW, because there is no desire to move Bitcoin away from PoW, because there is no need to move Bitcoin away from PoW. The only people who want to move Bitcoin away from PoW are the people who don't participate in the Bitcoin network in any way - which is to say nocoiners, because they don't get what Bitcoin is all about, so they don't understand PoW.
As you can see from the Ethereum upgrade, changing consensus mechanisms is a huge complicated undertaking, and Bitcoin is much more stable and moves much more slowly than any other blockchain because it is so important, so valuable, and it's value is partially reliant on it being so stable. So there is no need to put the Bitcoin network in potential harms way in order to do a very complicated and entirely unnecessary consensus change.
PoW is not a bad thing that Bitcoin clings to against rationality. PoW is a fundamental part of Bitcoin's power, security, value, and importance to society.
Bitcoin mining is going to renewable energy on it's own, "naturally" or organically, simply because that's the general direction miners will take if they can't have "normal" power at a price they are willing to pay. Not including the thieves that steal electricity, that's a different issue.
Small miners will set up their equipment where ever convenient for them. Big miners will set up their equipment where electricity is cheap or no one else is using them or find a way to create electricity through renewable resources. Kinda like instead of going to the city, the city will come to them? It's been mentioned a few times in other places already so ... that line of thinking is out there.
Small miners will set up their equipment where ever convenient for them. Big miners will set up their equipment where electricity is cheap or no one else is using them or find a way to create electricity through renewable resources. Kinda like instead of going to the city, the city will come to them? It's been mentioned a few times in other places already so ... that line of thinking is out there.
once the big organisations start vault managing the peg-ins-outs of these feature/sidechains. then you will see the 1970's bank note/gold games at play in the cryptosphere.vault up btc. play with their tokens withdraw/swap to scamcoin 'coz withdrawal is cheap'
which is why im staying with bitcoin onchain transactions.. thanks
which is why im staying with bitcoin onchain transactions.. thanks
Literally, ANY technology for transferring monetary value other than directly on Bitcoin's L1 introduces trust or some other form of counterparty risk.
Therefore, keeping your life savings (or your company's financial reserves) other than directly in BTC would be either outright suicidal or at least asking for problems.
Outside the Bitcoin's ledger, send or hold only those funds that "you are willing to lose", one might say ironically...
This vault management thing is already a thing now too, caught sight of big recent announcements from Yearn, polka, others, all jumping on board each other to use Yearn's vault solution to manage all them sidechain and wrapped tokens "securely".
The fact also that many of these, when called out to explain their counterparty risks, aren't willing or able to, says a lot.
Only a big fall for these, catching out all those bitcoiners pegging in their coins, is the only way people might finally understand why Bitcoin is "clinging to PoW".
on the other side it could be very healthy to the renewables industry if all miners would be forced to use only green energy, since this would generate a significant amount of money flowing into those industries. But I don't see any technical way to really enforce that.
I don't see the need to enforce this technically. People acquire electricity through the existing economy. If it is wanted to have a larger fraction of green energy, a way to do so might be to tax energy from non-renewable sources.
I don't think such a green-energy requirement is going to work well in practice because it will put strain on renewable energy makers (because they are not big as coal/oil/gas companies) to make enough to meet the miners' demands, and this could cause a global renewable energy shortage as a result. That's going to stir up environmentalists even more against bitcoin, except this time they'll be able to squarely blame bitcoin because of whatever merged BIP mandated this switch.
Energy might be another factor and important as well, so a less power hungry solution might be great
The PoW algorithm adapts itself to the globally invested computing power regularly. So it is always as power hungry as people are willing to invest electricity.
on the other side it could be very healthy to the renewables industry if all miners would be forced to use only green energy, since this would generate a significant amount of money flowing into those industries. But I don't see any technical way to really enforce that.
I don't see the need to enforce this technically. People acquire electricity through the existing economy. If it is wanted to have a larger fraction of green energy, a way to do so might be to tax energy from non-renewable sources.
once the big organisations start vault managing the peg-ins-outs of these feature/sidechains. then you will see the 1970's bank note/gold games at play in the cryptosphere.vault up btc. play with their tokens withdraw/swap to scamcoin 'coz withdrawal is cheap'
which is why im staying with bitcoin onchain transactions.. thanks
which is why im staying with bitcoin onchain transactions.. thanks
Literally, ANY technology for transferring monetary value other than directly on Bitcoin's L1 introduces trust or some other form of counterparty risk.
Therefore, keeping your life savings (or your company's financial reserves) other than directly in BTC would be either outright suicidal or at least asking for problems.
Outside the Bitcoin's ledger, send or hold only those funds that "you are willing to lose", one might say ironically...
But as the BTC adoption progresses, the need for additional layers will increase, I suppose.
The subject of how Bitcoin differs from gold is interesting (for me at least), but very deep. Since this is related to the problem of how the world's financial systems can adapt to the existence of Bitcoin, if it is possible.
So it would be a complete offtop.
Jump to: