Nostr Web Client

Not everyone. Holders don't pay, but they benefit, and those that spend subsidize the security on behalf of those that don't spend. It's a big problem that will increasingly become obvious as it rears it's head in the coming decades. I wrote up some detail on it in the linked note and more in the thread it is in

nostr:nevent1qqs84fr56hq6wzjcdmg6pu5s65v9a05duxejjytgj7jgk0jdf6zgheqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygxaypt42mug5ex2e5r46qrlr0jgp72fey0ad5xy6kfm4nxm924augpsgqqqqqqstyf93r

MAHDOOD 1y ago

The holders paid to secure their wealth when they initially moved their funds to their wallet. It’s just that there isn’t an ongoing cost to holding it. But wealth that never moves is not beneficial. At some point they have to move it and pay a cost.

I think that energy will become cheaper over time but also that bitcoin will become more valuable over time as well. The subsidy continues to shrink but Bitcoin’s value continues trending up while hash continues to rise along with it.

Time will tell.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

mister_monster 1y ago

There is an ongoing cost to holding it. Your wealth is secured by the network, without that security, your wealth is worthless. That security you get is subsidized by spenders, and this has incentive/game-theoretical implications for the bitcoin network that are not good. You can have the rarest of assets and if it can disappear while you sleep it's not worth anything.

Energy becoming cheaper... As energy becomes cheaper, people spend more on it by raising their energy usage. This is commonly observed everywhere in the world, and so far, empirically, this has held true for the bitcoin network as well.

I explained all of this stuff the other day in more detail in the following note, as well as another note in the same thread, if you want to give it a read to get a good idea of my thoughts on the matter.

nostr:nevent1qqs84fr56hq6wzjcdmg6pu5s65v9a05duxejjytgj7jgk0jdf6zgheqpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygxaypt42mug5ex2e5r46qrlr0jgp72fey0ad5xy6kfm4nxm924augpsgqqqqqqstyf93r

MAHDOOD 1y ago

Found this post that gives an alternative perspective on energy demand. Read the first section on AI energy use.

“But energy demand did not follow in the same way … Between 2010 and 2018, global data centre compute increased by more than 550%. Yet energy use in data centres increased by just 6%.”

https://newsletter.humanprogress.org/p/weekly-progress-roundup-35e

mister_monster 1y ago

I'll read it, but just your quote says demand went up in the study, not down, which is what I'm saying. Compute increased 550% and energy usage 6%, if your projection was right it would've gone up 300% or something and energy usage gone down. That's not what we see empirically anywhere in the world. Where efficiency goes up, new energy demand outpaces it.