[shawnz]

> ... climate change doesn’t care about hypotheticals.

But increasing the block size limit wouldn't reduce the energy consumption. It would just make Bitcoin support a higher maximum transaction count per second, which perhaps the market doesn't even need or care about.

[arcticbull]

I would love to see you defended active tire fire in your backyard with the same logic.

[shawnz]

Can you explain what you mean?

The power consumption of Bitcoin is proportional to the price of Bitcoin, it is not related to the demand for making transactions or how many transactions are being made.

[arcticbull]

You folks keep saying that like it’s a good thing but in my opinion that is a scathing indictment of the system. You’re talking about something that’s intentionally anti-efficient. It’s the only technology I’ve ever seen in my entire lifetime but becomes less efficient when more people try and use it. It’s horrifying.

[edit; to your reply: that sounds like a bad solution and I think you know that lol]

[shawnz]

That fact says nothing about the efficiency. What it says is that market forces will decide what level of energy they want to dedicate to the security of the network. Whatever the market is willing to pay, it will be 100% efficiently spent on outcompeting attackers on the network.

> that sounds like a bad solution and I think you know that lol

I don't think it's a good or bad solution. It is basically just the same as how market forces control the values of fiat currencies which in turn affects how much energy is required to secure them.

[arcticbull]

Through a proof of waste of limited resources system. Just spell it out and I’ll agree.

[edit: this isn't about the army. this is about currency. stay on track, stay on topic - both of those things can be bad and having two of them can be additively much worse; having a debate with you is like trying to grab a fistful of jello, absolutely impossible]

[shawnz]

Exactly, just like how with fiat currencies, the military serves as a proof-of-waste system which does nothing productive except to compete with other militaries. They compete by intentionally burning their limited resources (young individuals' lives) so as to make an enemy attack cost-prohibitive, thus securing the network.

> The army is to defend the country and its people, and would not be reduced in a bitcoin powered world.

Yes, they also defend other things besides the country's financial interests. So you'd expect them to cost a little more than Bitcoin, which only defends holders' financial interests. I am simply pointing out how they use the same proof-of-work system to accomplish it.

If the widespread adoption of Bitcoin led to a devaluation of existing fiat currencies, then you would expect military spending to go down (in terms of bitcoins). But I don't think that Bitcoin's adoption will decrease the use of fiat currencies (by any significant amount).

> both of those things can be bad and having two of them can be additively much worse

It's not clear why they would be additively worse. Creating a new place to store wealth doesn't increase the overall amount of wealth.

I agree that it is not a good thing that proof-of-work systems are wasteful, but perhaps it's the only way of solving the problem.

Proof-of-stake systems look promising but there are still some open questions about how it should be implemented and what the implications are for network security, and it will be at least a few years before they become battle-tested enough to have the same level of trust as Bitcoin.