BTC is incredibly wasteful and inefficient. The majority of SHA-256 miners are mining BTC for now as, while the price is high and the block-reward is still 12.5BTC it makes sense for them to mine it. It returns profit. But that profit was designed to build out an infrastructure for something else entirely, a new internet of money, bitcoin with an unlimited block-size was Satoshi's original vision, 'Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision': BSV.
In Satoshi's Vision, the planet uses the Blockchain to store information and serve it on demand in return for micropayments. In this model, the blockchain at scale totally revolutionises the global economy by providing payment rails for every national and international currency to run on, along with a settlement and clearance infrastructure for every kind of financial instrument. It's a single system where 'crypto-currencies' don't exist.
In fact, BTC and BTC culture is incredibly perverse. Trying to turn Bitcoin into a crypto-currency was a profoundly bad idea. Trying to outwit regulators and bring down governments using Bitcoin is a vision of disaster. Delivering drugs to the populous might sound fun, but if you consider the huge damage it does, and add the fact that BTC deliberately tries to discourage banking, corporations and governments from running efficiently at scale, you end up with a design of money which is inherently unprofitable, and therefore can't work by design.
BTC does approximately 4tx/sec with a 1Mb block size. BSV plans to do a billion tx/sec for the same energy consumption. There's really no contest in the long term in terms of technology, but the environmentalist argument from the far left will most likely continue because they most likely won't properly absorb the rationale.
The argument in favour of more TX/sec is very simple: it is just so vastly more efficient at scale than all the other financial technologies combined that it stands to reason that it will dis-intermediate much of the server infrastructure of banks and corporations, who will use less power as a result of using a single common system backed by proof-of-work.
But the extended argument is much more thorny. By introducing efficiencies at scale to global corporations, the fear amongst the far-left will be that increasing economic activity is damaging to the environment. This is the idea that successful capitalism itself is the problem, and that the market won't deliver solutions to things like global warming and climate change without being forced to by government through social consensus.
The problem for them is that inevitably, if a system returns profit to its participants, then the participants will use it. As such, the migration of SHA256 miners to BSV is an economic certainty, since they'll be paid not just the block subsidy, but also by companies wanting to store and access data on the block-chain and everyday people who are making billions of transactions per day on the network.
The question then becomes: if we have a global supercomputer that does a billion transactions per second on BSV, can we analyse the global economy in real-time and find inefficiencies that save businesses money AND ALSO save the environment?
It's possible that this kind of technology is exactly what we need to calculate solutions for the planet.
For example, in this model you can calculate the real cost of cutting down a rainforest in order to make grazing pasture for McDonald's cows by including data-sets that were previously incalculable.
One of the central selling points of crypto-currencies has been how to implement smart-contracts. One argument for BSV is that by providing a stable and unchanging protocol on which to build these smart-contracts over hundreds of years, the contracts will also remain enforceable for hundreds of years, making old-growth forest contracts viable.
This should be of central concern. An un-governed system of mercantilism where people cut down rainforests because nobody owns them is worst. By contrast a regulated capitalist system that protects and grows rainforests over hundreds or even thousands of years is best since it locks in profit in for the future and allows for a very long term investment horizon.
This is all conjecture, but it's backed by persuasive arguments and there are few good arguments to support BTC by contrast. Ethereum can't scale and Proof-of-Stake systems collapse into banking cartels and single-user end control.
Somebody thought of all this when he wrote the protocol originally. Shame no one is listening. Perhaps it's time to start paying attention.


No one has reviewed this piece of content yet