On Sun, Jul 31, 2022, 1:26 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 8:19 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> Running the bitcoin network isn't inherently energy intensive. The >> entire network can be run on a single laptop.* > > > I don't see how that could be possible, the entire idea behind Bitcoin is > to be decentralized and have multiple miners competing to be the first to > verify the Blockchain and get a reward in the form of Bitcoins, so you > can't have just one computer doing it all. > You can. That's how it ran until the second person downloaded it. Then there were just two computers doing everything. In theory all existing miners but one could power down and it bitcoin would keep on going fine. And every time there is a Bitcoin transaction 707 kilowatt hours of energy > is expended, > That figure is only because there are so many miners competing for the block reward. If there weren't so many miners the power requirements would be much less. and the more bitcoin is used the longer the Blockchain will be and the more > energy it will take to verify it. > The computational cost of verifying the chain and transactions is insignificant, a single raspberry pi can do it. You can out together such a nose for about $200. Think of it like this: Imagine a lottery that guaranteed a winner every drawing. How much is spent to win? It depends how many people choose to play. If only one person played there would still be a winner. But if a million people bought a ticket for $1 it would cost $1 million to win. This is how it is with bitcoin. The protocol guarantees a winner every 10 minutes regardless of how many people are playing and regardless of how much computational power is expended. The prize is fixed at 6.25 bitcoin. People buy tickets with computational power. Now if the prize drops, does it make sense for rational people to spend as much as they did before to buy tickets? No, if they are rational the amount they should spend (in aggregate) should approximate the value of the prize. It doesn't make sense for people to buy $1 billion worth of tickets if the prize is fixed at $1 million. Likewise if there were only 1,000 $1 tickets bought to win a prize of $1 million, it would make sense for rational players to keep buying more tickets. So long as the expected value of winning a reward is less than the cost of the computation they can put in (but the more others put in lowers their own personal chance of winning, since there can only be one winner). As the block reward decreases, the amount of energy put into buying tickets will decrease. Note: This calculation assumes the value of bitcoin doesn't increase sufficiently to compensate for the halving. If bitcoin doubles in price between the halving period, then the cost of energy put in should stay constant. Jason > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > uvv > > > > > >> >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022, 7:23 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 8:33 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> *> The aha on your energy observation seemingly would be resolved by >>>> huge electricity making. I will list the electricity makings that are >>>> likely to be ginormous if perfected?* >>>> >>> >>> That won't help because the energy cost involved in making a bitcoin is >>> also increasing and it's increasing exponentially; there will never be more >>> than 21 million bitcoins in the world because if there are 21 million of >>> them the energy needed to make another one is infinite. Bitcoin is >>> inherently energy inefficient and its inefficiency can only increase. >>> >> >> >> Technically its energy efficiency should increase with each block reward >> halving. This is because the energy that it makes rational sense to put >> towards mining is directly proportional to the market value of the block >> reward. So when the reward is cut in half, as happens every four years, >> half the miners should go away and half the energy will be put into it. >> >> Running the bitcoin network isn't inherently energy intensive. The entire >> network can be run on a single laptop. What makes it energy intensive are >> the market forces driving more people than necessary into mining. This, can >> also be seen as a design feature: the more valuable the network becomes, >> the more resources are put towards securing it (more miners with more >> computing power make the network more secure). >> >> Market forces are driving mining operations towards the cheapest/free >> energy sources, such as when powerplants have excess power they can't >> otherwise use for anything and would be wasted otherwise. >> >> Jason >> >> >> >>> >>> Other than it's inventor Satoshi Nakamoto the very first person to ever >>> mint a bitcoin was Hal Finney in 2009, back then a typical home computer >>> could make a bitcoin in just a few minutes, I remember he said on the >>> Extropian mailing list I was on at the time that on a whim he once left his >>> computer on overnight minting bitcoins. He claims that after that he forgot >>> all about it but soon after he was faced with huge medical bills because he >>> was diagnosed with ALS, the same disease Stephen Hawkings had, and about >>> the same time he started reading about the huge increase in the price of >>> Bitcoins. Finney no longer used that old obsolete computer but he still had >>> it at the back of his closet, and the Bitcoins were still on the hard >>> drive, they were more than enough to pay for his medical expenses. >>> >>> Finney died in 2014 and to this day some people think he actually was >>> Satoshi Nakamoto. It may be a coincidence that Nakamoto stopped posting and >>> disappeared about the same time Finney got sick, or it may not be, but it >>> would explain why although he owns billions of dollars worth of bitcoins >>> not a single one has ever been spent by somebody who controls the Bitcoin >>> account of "Satoshi Nakamoto". Even after this recent price collapse >>> Nakamoto is still one of the richest men in the world, and yet he doesn't >>> seem to have ever spent a single nickel of his vast fortune. It's weird. >>> >>> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >>> 3ch >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1BHpiwwUQDPcqJ66kUxWDuiKLBEqEa%3DK9Zo7gHZryg5g%40mail.gmail.com >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1BHpiwwUQDPcqJ66kUxWDuiKLBEqEa%3DK9Zo7gHZryg5g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhRzDCrdqyc5QKDTd5fmWjdDedBNsfM6kgutT4anFU1oQ%40mail.gmail.com >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhRzDCrdqyc5QKDTd5fmWjdDedBNsfM6kgutT4anFU1oQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2vWCR5GbQg_7c75_azWNiBmAGavxaX6TJiNMb56S8s1A%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2vWCR5GbQg_7c75_azWNiBmAGavxaX6TJiNMb56S8s1A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgimafty0XvANnNE1Xoc%2BX2688B1B3OxW673Loz0NwZnA%40mail.gmail.com.
