Chris Larsen Expressed: You may have seen me and others advocate for Bitcoin to move away from PoW to address energy consumption long term. A common pushback is that miners would never get on board with this. Well today I’m proposing a solution to that.

While this is early stages (and not perfect by any means), I believe if miners continued to receive BTC incentives WITH a code change, this could bring them on board. Let’s discuss.

Random Concerns from Different Miners About Miner Rights and Rewards:  Hard pass.

Mining ASIC hardware has a 3–5-year lifespan, why give fixed rights to rewards away for 18 years, when the hard work and investment has already written off? With this approach, existing miners are being rewarded for ~2 decades based on historical investments. Perhaps, I am missing something.

I’m trying to start the conversation on what a low energy code change might look like – lots of details TBD but bottom line is there is plenty of economic value to ensure miners aren’t penalized by a code change.

A first change on the road to a low carbon should be a shared reward for all miners who participated in solving the problem. Everyone working for the duration of the block gets an equal share. Mining companies get guaranteed returns, small miners cover their costs.

Sounds like digital communism.

Chris, while there are people on this earth that live without power, proof of work if a failure – the amount of power consumed by mining rigs could power communities around the world that have never had the privilege.

Chris. Stay out of it. The real advocates in this space have a plan to be 100 percent renewable / wasted energy by 2030 in North America.  This will boost demand for real clean energy solutions and bring North America to the forefront of clean energy on a global scale.

There will never be a code change like this. There is no need for any discussion. Feel free to fork away and come up with a scam setup, we can’t stop you.

Just create a PoS Bitcoin hard fork and get everyone to switch from the old Bitcoin to the new & improved one. Miners and users who don’t make the switch in time will see their holdings lose value. If your idea has merit, this should be easy.

PoW is what makes Bitcoin decentralized and secure. If you think you have a better solution you can just make your own coin like 10 000 others before. Bitcoin can’t be changed and shouldn’t be changed.  The problems that BTC solves, it solves through PoW.

Chris, Bitcoin mining incentivizes the capture of already abundant clean energy.  BTC consumes overcapacity energy that would be wasted. BTC miners seek low cost abundant power (likely to be solar/hydro in the future) you need to do more research man. POW is BTCs key feature.

Fork off of Bitcoin away from PoW and let’s see how successful your PoS shit coin is.

Keeping 100% rewards would be good for the miners at start – it would provide them some time window to repurpose their infra to different kind of work e.g. server-side rendering of metaverse classrooms or something meaningful.

Then the rewards could decline YoY as they begin profiting from the new kind of activity (or they go bust if they haven’t figured anything out.

Energy use is not a bad thing. It is literally what gives BTC its value & security.

I say if you want to clean a barrel chuck out the rotten apples. In the future there will be no place for PoW tech. There is no place for the likes of Lubin and the BTC maxi culture in the future either. Admit it now instead of pretending there is something good to be preserved.

Bitcoiners wouldn’t give a damn about screwing miners if they weren’t necessary. You are having the wrong discussion.

Miners don’t have any special say in Bitcoin’s rules. The problem isn’t that miners won’t agree; it’s that there are no viable alternative.

So, you want to phase out BTC’s geopolitical decentralization and resistance to nation state attack in favour of a consensus that puts the rich in control, thereby complying to the fake ESG narrative put out by central bankers?

Energy consumption isn’t the problem, the means of how it’s currently generated is. If BTC used all solar, this wouldn’t be an issue. The idea that conservation of energy is a viable path forward ignores the reality that energy generation must rise rapidly irrespective of Bitcoin.