Bitcoini energiakasutus on funktsioon, mitte viga

Bitcoin incentivizes energy innovations whereas proof-of-stake results in exacerbated inequality since the more money you have, the more money you get.

Mickey Koss on West Pointi lõpetanud majandusharidusega. Enne rahanduskorpusesse üleminekut veetis ta neli aastat jalaväes.

Aastal hiljutine artikkel titled “Bitcoin Is Not a Store-of-Value,” an author going by the name of 0xStacker provided a seemingly well-reasoned critique of Bitcoin, equating its energy usage to a flaw in the system — a leak that precludes bitcoin from being classified as a sound store of value. I’m here to tell you that the energy use is not a flaw, but in fact, the aspect of bitcoin that will drive it forward as a reserve currency and store of value for the entire world. The solution touted in the article points to proof-of-stake, of course, but the flaws inherent to that system make it unsuitable as a long-term store of value or decentralized monetary base.

Bitcoin mining is about as competitive as it gets with markets: You’re either purchasing cheap-enough electricity to maintain profitability or you’re not. If you’re not, over time you will be forced to sell your bitcoin and be run out of business. The author seems to assume that energy prices will continue to climb over time, making it more and more expensive to mine, causing a network death spiral if price action doesn’t keep up. If you assume we remain on fundamentally scarce and perishable energy sources and a system reliant upon perpetual money printing and inflationary policy, then the author may have a point. But isn’t the entire purpose of Bitcoin to create a parallel system without a mindset of hostility to human flourishing?

Karda ebakindlust ja kahtlust matemaatikaga ümber pakitud

First and foremost, bitcoin miners selling bitcoin isn’t an issue to me. Why would we want a group of perpetual HODLersid keeping every coin they ever mine? Coin distribution is essential for a healthy allocation of coins to go to people who want to opt out of the current system. Bitcoin is first and foremost about decentralization and individual empowerment. Do we criticize gold miners for selling gold? This criticism made so little sense to me that it barely registered as something to address.

The miners I know, including myself and those at the corporate level, only sell bitcoin as a last resort. They mine because they want bitcoin, not because they want fiat revenue streams. The selling pressure in my eyes is a non-issue. It is indicative of the marginal cost of producing bitcoin, which is one of the main aspects of bitcoin that give it value when compared to fiat currencies. What’s the marginal cost of producing an extra dollar? About five clicks and a couple of strokes on Jerome Powell’s keyboard.

0xStackeri lahenduses — panuse tõendamises — ei ole panustajatel muutuvkulusid peale võib-olla tulumaksu. Tänu panustamisele avaldatavale mõjule võrgu üle on suurtel poistel stiimul oma mündist kinni hoida, et võrgustiku üle üha rohkem kontrollida. Teoreetiliselt võiks suur panustaja või nende kartell (nagu suured börsid) kokku saada ja panuste tõestamise võrgustiku täielikult üle võtta. Stiimulid juhivad tsentraliseerimist. Mida rohkem sul on, seda rohkem saad.

The author then attempts to equate current mining costs and iterate them out, using current numbers, to project a future market cap and the energy expenditure required. This methodology is so nonsensical that it took me a while to even understand it. What I finally realized is that his equation is simply a mathematical representation of classic Bitcoin energy FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt). Luckily so many people have debunked this claim, it’s barely worth mentioning at this point. (Examples can be found siin or siin.)

Lihtne anekdoot mõne tema FUD-punkti vastu võitlemiseks on uus Antminer S19 XP. Võrreldes eelkäija S19 Pro-ga suurendate räsimäära 27% ja 4% vähenema energiatarbimises. Kaevurite räsimäär võib plahvatuslikult kasvada, kuid energiatarve kindlasti mitte.

He also attacks the Lightning Network as centralized and relying on companies like Strike. This is simply not true. Much like Bitcoin, the Lightning Network is permissionless, open-source software; It has nothing to do with Strike. The Lightning Network is a Layer-2 application. Strike should be considered Layer 3, using the Lightning Network as an enabling tool for its business. Strike relies on the Lightning Network, certainly not the other way around.

As the bitcoin price grows, yes, fees will grow as well. Small purchases will move onto Lightning; large purchases that need more security and finality will remain on-chain. The hash rate will move to whatever level that miners are incentivized to keep mining.

Autor räägib isegi iseendale vastu, kui üritab tõestada panusepõhise kaevandamise eeliseid:

"See tähendab, et võrgukasutus on lõppkasutaja jaoks pisut kallim, kuid nende võrgukasutus toob kasu kõigile ETH omanikele, põletades osa pakkumisest. Lisaks, kuna panustamisega ei kaasne suuri energiakulusid, ei pea võrguvalidaatorid kulude katmiseks müüma sissetulevat ETH-d. Tegelikult, kuna pakkumine on deflatsiooniline, on neil stiimul hoida."

Bitcoin is too expensive but ETH being expensive is okay because they burn tokens and don’t use energy…? It doesn’t make sense. He even states that the validators are incentivized to hold tokens because they don’t have variable costs. The key difference here is that the amount of bitcoin you hold does not affect network consensus. So, if validators are incentivized to hold, please explain how the biggest bagholders won’t slowly take over the entire network? It’s a slow and steady march towards centralization.

He compares the return on investment into bitcoin mining to staking, but fails to mention that the accrual of bitcoin through mining:

1. Happens at a decreasing rate with hash rate growth.
2. Does not grow your influence over the network with the size of your bitcoin stack.

Kaevurid peavad pakkuma väärtust, et jääda elujõuliseks. Panustajad peavad lihtsalt panustama.

The author’s article is littered with so many false points and comparisons that it’s honestly difficult to even address them all. Bitcoin has a $3 billion cost for a 51% attack — good luck getting your hands on all that hardware and electricity. You must have your own secret chip foundries and nuclear power plants nobody knows about.

Autori algne väide, et ta ei avalda lihtsalt FUD-i, faktikontroll: vale.

Kaevandamise stiimulid

In Bitcoini ajakiri "Kuu probleemile," kirjutas Hass McCook III teoreetilise loo pealkirjaga "Bitcoin Mining in the 22nd Century.” The article culminates in a beautiful illustration of how Bitcoin’s incentives iterate into a world of human flourishing:

"On Earth, 25% of the world’s energy is dedicated to mining bitcoin, and due to the largely Bitcoin-driven intense competition in the energy markets, regular people effectively have access to very low-cost if not free energy … The world’s grid is emissions free. Of note is that humanity now uses a full 50 times more energy than we did a century ago — all clean."

Bitcoin is the incentive that can help drive down energy costs and bring human flourishing to the world. In a recent article by Level39, he presents a technique that uses temperature differentials in ocean water to generate electricity. The technology has existed for over 100 years in theory, however the incentives for actual development have not existed until the development of a decentralized, energy-based monetary system that could monetize electricity existed. That system is bitcoin.

Kasumlikkuse eeldus

One of the most flawed assumptions in my eyes is that bitcoin mining needs to be profitable in the first place.

Assuming that miners will always be giant warehouses full of computers, consuming energy second-hand from the power companies, then yeah, bitcoin mining companies will always need to remain profitable. An interesting discussion that I’ve heard floated on podcasts recently is the theory that energy companies will begin to acquire bitcoin mining companies or that bitcoin mining companies will begin to acquire energy producers. Either way, it’s a win-win and helps to alleviate the need for bitcoin miners to be profitable at all. The magic here lies in the elektrinõudluse kõver.

(allikas): USA energiateabe administratsioon, USA igatunnine elektrivõrgu monitor.

The demand curve essentially illustrates the change in demand for electricity based on the time of day, at different points throughout the year. While this conversation could get very complicated, one of the big reasons that energy tends to get more expensive over time is that the price of your energy not only has to pay for the energy you use, but also for all the excess capacity that electric companies have but cannot use most of the time. You see, electric utility companies need to maintain the electricity capacity to meet the high demand for electricity as depicted in the month of July above — plus some excess safety margin — but that capacity goes largely unused for the rest of the year. Merging bitcoin mining and energy production could resolve this problem completely. Instead of energy consumers paying for unused capacity, utility companies would use nearly 100% of their capacity, ramping mining up and down based on energy demand throughout the day, charging customers only for the electricity that they actually use.

The incentives are still the same as far as renewable development and variable costs go, however it eliminates the necessity for bitcoin miners to be profitable. The act of mining bitcoin simply has to outweigh the opportunity cost of keeping the excess capacity offline. If there are near-zero variable costs associated with generating electricity, like in hydro and nuclear, why wouldn’t generators simply keep capacity at nearly 100% and soak up all the extra electricity into bitcoin? They wouldn’t even need to sell, but simply use bitcoin in the beautiful, monetary-battery capacity that Michael Saylor loves to talk about.

See võib kaasa tuua puhaste baaskoormusega energiaallikate, näiteks tuumaenergia massilise suurenemise ning tuua kaasa odavama, usaldusväärsema ja külluslikuma energia kõigile. See energiakäsna kontseptsioon aitab juba stabiliseerida võrke ja vähendada heitkoguseid sellistes kohtades nagu Texas, Utah, Kenya ja Omaan. So while Bitcoin is changing the world of energy, proof-of-stake coin-holders are incentivized to hold because the price might go up, I guess.

Furthermore, ASIC chips can be used to replace the heating elements for applications, such as HVAC systems and water heaters. Why would you simply want to produce heat when you could mine bitcoin at the same time? Sounds like a really stupid waste of electricity to me, and guess what, this is already happening in Kanada on a pretty large scale, delivering heat to 100 residential and commercial buildings. Why would you not want a water heater or furnace that mines bitcoin?

Tuli, et number tõuseks, jäi vabaduse tõusuks

The author also seems to focus greatly on price, ignoring the freedom-oriented aspects of the decentralized and immutable ledger that is Bitcoin. Fundamentally, proof-of-stake is a system where the more money you have, the more money you get and the more control you gain.

Autor küsib:

"Miks peaks investor otsustama salvestada väärtust sümboolsesse süsteemi, mis lekib väärtust, kui ta võiks valida sellise süsteemi, mis väärtust ei leki, millel on suurem nõudluse potentsiaal, kuna see on keskkonnasõbralikum ja millel on deflatsiooniline pakkumine, mis toob kaasa väärtuse kogunemise. märgi (number tõuseb tokenoomika)?

Lihtsalt öeldes, see on sellepärast, et ma ei usu teie süsteemi. Üksi sõlme käitamiseks ei ole ega saa kunagi detsentraliseerida hinna alusel. Ma lükkan tagasi eelduse, et kellelgi on volitus määrata minu energiakasutust, rääkimata sellest, et teie arusaamadel selle kohta, mis on keskkonnasõbralik, on ennekõike objektiivsed või kasulikud määratlused. Kas soovite elada vabadusejärgses, ökofašistlikus, düstoopilises ühiskonnas? Nii jõuate sinna. Energiakasutus pole halb. Saate oma kooki süüa ja ka seda süüa, säästes samal ajal keskkonda ja töötades oma vahelduvvoolu täisvõimsusel.

Praeguse märgihinnaga, mis on veidi alla 2,000 dollari, on Ethereumi sõlme käivitamise kulud praegu vaid 64,000 32 dollarit ehk XNUMX ETH. See on järsk hinnasilt iseseisvuse ja oma tehingute kinnitamise võimaluse eest. Kulud, mida enamik maailmast ausalt öeldes ei suuda kunagi maksta. Lisaks tagab panustatud tasu selle, et suurimad kotihoidjad saavad alati koguda rohkem ja rohkem võrgust.

Bitcoin has no such problem. You hold your bitcoin as long as you are able to. No amount of bitcoin will ever allow you to exert more influence on the network than anybody else. From the pleb with a few thousand sats to Michael Saylor sitting on his seven-figure mountain of coin, we are all equal. The cost of setting up and running a bitcoin node is about $500 for a premium out-of-the-box solution. The hurdle to become a sovereign individual is much more attainable for the average person with Bitcoin than with Ethereum. The nodes maintain the ledger; the nodes enforce the rules. A much cheaper barrier to entry ensures that Bitcoin remains decentralized with the ability for many more people to run their own node and ensure decentralization.

Minu silmis on meil kaks teed edasi:

Andke järele energia FUDstersidele, leppige hinnatõusuga ja tehke kõik endast oleneva, et vähendada tarbimist ning suurendada sõltuvust vahelduvatest ja ebausaldusväärsetest allikatest, sest elektri kasutamine on halb.

Või:

Leverage the Bitcoin network to bootstrap a new age of human flourishing and abundant energy for everyone.

I’ll go with option number two. Bitcoin is a powerful and decentralized network in a way that proof-of-stake can never be and will never become. Bitcoin’s energy use is a feature, not a bug.

See on külalise postitus Miki Koss. Avaldatud arvamused on täielikult nende omad ja ei pruugi kajastada BTC Inc. või Bitcoin ajakiri.

• Münditark. Euroopa parim Bitcoini ja krüptobörs.
• Platoblockchain. Web3 metaversiooni intelligentsus. Täiustatud teadmised. TASUTA PÄÄS.
• CryptoHawk. Altcoini radar. Tasuta prooviversioon.
• Source: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoins-energy-use-is-a-feature-not-a-bug