Hey everyone,
Last week, our post got taken down without any heads up, which was a bit of a shock. We value the discussions here and want to revisit this topic for more conversation. I get that we’re diving into some pretty complicated tech stuff, and it might take some deep thinking to figure out how this could lead to a greener mining process.
We totally understand the fundamentals of bitcoin, especially how crucial decentralization is. Relying on hardware limitations isn’t the way to go, and we think there are ways to get around those issues. Plus, auditing doesn’t seem great either since it can hurt decentralization.
With this technical post, we're aiming to chat about real ways to lower the carbon footprint linked to bitcoin mining. It’s a hot topic for investors and regulators alike. One idea we’re looking at is Proof of Idle, which might help lessen bitcoin's environmental impact. If we can show that bitcoin is powered by solar energy, it could really boost its image and tackle a major criticism.
Just to be clear, this is just the starting point of our thoughts, and we’d love to hear what you all think about the benefits and drawbacks of this idea. How could we technically make idling work while keeping the network decentralized? What other methods could help us reach the decarbonization goal without messing with the core principles?
It's weird your thread got deleted. Anyway, i'm here to re-ask these question.
1. What stops ASIC manufacture to make fake/malicious TEE which send manipulated data to maximize miners income?
2. How Bitcoin full nodes can verify the data comes from TEE without any tampering?
Without oracle or 3rd party, how Bitcoin full nodes can verify the audit is being done truthfully and competently?
If you introduce any limits into the hardware, then people will unlock it anyway. Or: they will use older hardware instead. For example: if UEFI wouldn't be so restrictive, then FSF wouldn't be forced to run their software on Thinkpads from 2008 (to make sure, that Intel Management Engine is not there).
The verifier could then easily manipulate the market, by creating some useless altcoin, and signing it. Also note, that signet is "green-verified", because all blocks are signed, but this coin is worthless.
The data sources used to inspire this proposal is as poorly thought out as this idea. I'll focus on your citations as @ABCbits has already showed the gaping technical issues with your proposal through his questions.
The first citation you list, The hidden environmental costs of cryptocurrency (found at https://collections.unu.edu/eserv/UNU:9528/UN-IWEH_BTC_Report.pdf), uses information from your second citation, CBECI.
The first report even notes this and helpfully summarizes the methods used by the CBECI:
"First, the monthly electricity use for BTC mining in the 76 BTC mining nations monitored by CBECI between January 2020 to December 2021 was roughly estimated using the average monthly hashrate share of each country and the total monthly electricity use of the global BTC mining network. Then the average carbon, water, and land footprint of electricity generation in each BTC mining nation were estimated [41, 42] based on its energy supply mix data as reported by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the environmental footprints of electricity generation from different sources using the scientific literature data on footprint valuesy [41, 42]. Multiplying the BTC electricity use in each country by its footprint values provided the carbon, water, and land footprint estimated of BTC mining for that country."
So even if all Bitcoin miners switched to using renewable energy today, the data collection method would still hold them responsible for the carbon footprint of their residing countries. For all we know this could already be the case, but the data isn't able to tell us.
It's almost academically dishonest to reference those numbers in any serious publication. The CBECI explicitly mentions these assumptions (https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/ghg/methodology), so they can argue they don't hide it, but publishing this information with such uncertain methods in the first place should be condemned.
Rather than repeat what others have written, I would like to point out the problem with "carbon footprint".
The "carbon footprint" concept was invented as a way to get consumers to pressure the greenhouse gas producers to reduce their carbon emissions. Now the concept seems to be shifting that responsibility away from the actual culprits.
It is up to the power generators to reduce the amount of carbon that they burn, and not the users of their electricity. If power generators burned no carbon, then users would have no carbon footprint, regardless of how much electricity they use.
Regarding the quotes below:
The discussion started in this thread shouldn't be about bitcoin's potential environmental impact, nor about debating the carbon footprint concept, which is admittedly controversial, or the accuracy of CBECI's methods. Rather, it's about addressing one of the main criticisms of bitcoin: its environmental damage. Addressing this criticism is critical to the reputation and growth of the bitcoin community. By addressing concerns head-on, bitcoin can change the narrative and demonstrate a commitment to sustainability.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment
You raise important concerns about the use of Trusted Execution Environments (TEE) in a distributed network, particularly regarding potential hardware vulnerabilities. It's clear that hardware restrictions may not be the best approach. The intent of this post is to start a conversation about one of the main criticisms bitcoin faces from investors and lawmakers.
While time-limiting the mining process could be a potential solution, the real goal is to gather ideas from the community on how we can effectively address these criticisms. If there are alternative suggestions on how to address the major concerns surrounding bitcoin, we'd be happy to explore those as well. This post is just a starting point for brainstorming, not a final proposal.
[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]
You can't fix a hardware problem with a protocol change.
This proposal seems to indicate that miners will just buy more ASICs and run them as an offset to having to leave them all idle most of the time. Assuming suppliers can keep up, I think the environmental impact will be the same. If they can't, then miners will go bankrupt and hashrate collapses to a smaller amount.
I don't understand why the carbon footprint concept should not be debated when it is a foundation of your proposal.
I don't understand the difference between "potential environmental impact" and "environmental damage".
And by questioning the validity these criticisms of bitcoin, are we not addressing them?
I'm disappointed with vague answer with very little technical detail to my questions, especially because your thread says "we introduce a very complex technical topic". If you want to address criticism or attack towards Bitcoin rather than having technical discussion about your proposal, why don't you create new thread on different board instead?
The answer to this lies in your original post:
That is to say, the answer lies in further shifting towards renewable energy. If 33% of electricity being used for Bitcoin mining is renewable, it's actually ahead of the curve, with renewables consisting of only 28% of global energy production in 2021:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production
If Bitcoin spearheads renewable energy and helps building infrastructure for renewable energy by providing additional economic incentive, everybody wins.
This might not be easy, but unlike creating trustless hardware for some convulated "Proof of Idle" it would be possible. And it would have a tangible positive impact that goes beyond the Bitcoin mining business.
My overall concern here is won't there be high volume of idle transaction because as nodes get rewarded for staying idle rather than mining most miners will make attempts to claim reward almost at the same time and if the amount of data being distributed across the network becomes shortened won't there be issues resulting to congestion?
Now in case where there are idle nodes and idle transactions the impact might fall on block creation process possibly a delay in the processing and propagation of blocks.