Hey everyone,
Our previous post got deleted for some reason, which totally bummed us out. We really value the awesome conversations we have here and want to reintroduce our idea for a deeper dive. We know this topic is complex and could use some serious thought to explore how it can lead to a more sustainable mining process.
Weird that your thread vanished. Anyway, I have questions:
1. How can we trust ASIC manufacturers won’t create tampered TEE to boost their profits?
2. How do full nodes verify data from TEE without it being messed with?
Without a 3rd party, how can we be sure the audit is legit?
If you limit hardware, people will just find a way around it. They'll dig up older gear or open up limits. For instance, if UEFI wasn't a pain, folks wouldn't be stuck running old Thinkpads just to avoid Intel Management Engine.
Manipulating the market with a worthless altcoin is easy too, like with signet which is 'green-verified' but has no value.
Honestly, your data sources are weak. The first citation you mention ties back to your second one and doesn’t really add credibility.
The reports have a lot of gaps, just like your proposal. @ABCbits already pointed out major flaws in your approach.
Let’s be real for a second about "carbon footprint". This term pushes the burden onto users instead of holding power companies accountable for their emissions. If they used renewable energy, we wouldn’t even have this discussion.
This convo shouldn’t be about bitcoin’s environmental impact or the carbon footprint debate. We need to tackle criticism directly to maintain bitcoin's reputation. If we address these issues, we can show the community is committed to sustainable solutions.
Appreciate your thoughts on this.
You can’t solve hardware problems with changes to protocols.
This proposal kinda suggests miners will just keep buying more ASICs, which won't really help. If suppliers can't keep up, miners could go bankrupt and then we see a hashrate crash.
Why is the carbon footprint debate off-limits? It’s key to your proposal.
What’s the difference between "potential environmental impact" and "environmental damage" anyway? Here, we should address the criticisms rather than gloss over them.
Not impressed with the vague replies here, especially for a thread claiming to tackle complex tech issues. If you’re just looking to defend Bitcoin without discussing proposals, maybe start a different thread?
Check your original post!
The answer could be in pushing for more renewable energy. If Bitcoin mining is already 33% renewable, it’s doing better than the overall global average of 28%. If Bitcoin could lead in renewable efforts, it could benefit everyone.
I’m worried there will be a ton of idle transactions. If nodes get rewards for idling instead of mining, everyone will try to claim at once. This could lead to network congestion and delays in block creation.