[ExI] Sell your Bitcoins!

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, May 20, 2026, 8:09 AM John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, May 19, 2026 at 11:49 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> *> Even quantum cryptography would be dead if P = NP, because quantum
>> cryptography is just a quantum key exchange. It still relies on classical
>> encryption algorithms for protecting the bulk message. Though I suppose you
>> could do a one time pad (OTP) encryption which would remain secure even if
>> P = NP, but this requires you to send a key as long as the message to be
>> encrypted, which may not be practical. You are right that there's probably
>> no way to build a cryptocurrency on it. Quantum cryptography provides only
>> a line that you can tell when it's tapped, but it provides no means of
>> authentication or signatures, and crypto relies on a digital signature
>> scheme.*
>>
>
> *I agree with all of that.  *
>
>
>> *>> I agree that about 99.9% of Bitcoin's energy usage is caused by
>>> bitcoin mining not managing bitcoin transactions, but that is irrelevant
>>> because the two things are inextricably linked. You can't have one without
>>> the other. *
>>>
>>
>> *> You can, and that is the eventual plan. As the block rewards shrink
>> towards zero,*
>>
>
> *It will never reach zero but because the block reward halves every four
> years it will get asymptotically close to zero in 10 years or so.*
>

It's already fallen over 93% to 3.125 bitcoins per block, from it's initial
50. That has accordingly made Bitcoin use 93% less electricity than miners
would otherwise be spending on it.


> *> then mining decreases accordingly, eventually the block reward hits
>> zero, and then the entire cost of the Bitcoin network will be for
>> transaction fees,*
>>
>
> *True, therefore in addition to quantum computers that is ANOTHER huge
> problem bitcoin is going to need to solve in the immediate future. Today
> about 96% of a minor's income comes from block subsidies (the award of a
> newly minted bitcoin) and only 4% from transaction fees; but that ratio is
> going to need to be completely inverted. And that won't be easy. *
>

I don't see that as a problem. The change is gradual and the market of
miners will adjust accordingly as it has with every prior halving event. So
long as there are profits to be had there will be some miners to keep the
lights on.


>
>> * > which are small and less valuable compared to the block rewards. Then
>> Bitcoin will use very little energy. *
>>
>
> *But there is a problem, the cost of a 51% attack is proportional to the
> hash rate and that is proportional to how profitable mining is. So as block
> subsidies decline mining becomes less profitable and that causes the hash
> rate to drop and that causes the cost of a 51% attack to become
> economically viable and that causes one individual to be able to engage in
> double spending and that causes the complete destruction of any trust the
> general public had in bitcoin. *
>

A 51% attack isn't very profitable. It allows one person to temporarily
double spend their own bitcoins that they already have, and that is for
someone who only waits 10 minutes to confirm a transaction, for every
additional 10 minutes they wait it becomes twice as difficult to perform
that attack. So any very large transaction, could wait extra long to ensure
the money isn't double spent. Consider the paltry amount that an attacker
could make by double spending vs. the cost of buying all the mining
equipment to equal >50% of what's all the other miners together have.


> *That is an existential threat to bitcoin's existence even more certain
> than the threat posed by quantum computers. *
>

All this was planned and thought out long ago, the gradual decrease to zero
happens over 128 years. And it's 93% of the way there already. If problems
arise things could be adjusted (shrinking verification time from 10 minutes
to something less, increasing block size to fit more transactions, and
therefore total fees, etc.). Remember this is software we are dealing with,
not stone tablets from God.


>
>
>> *>> Bitcoin's huge energy expenditure is used to solve silly hash
>>> puzzles which are of no use to anyone and have nothing to do with the
>>> transactions themselve, energy that AI could've used to increase the sum
>>> total of human knowledge or doing something a little more useful than
>>> solving a hash puzzle, like curing cancer.  **It's locked into the
>>> fundamental nature of bitcoin that the more people value it the more energy
>>> it consumes, but in 2008 I doubt if Satoshi considered the thermodynamics
>>> consequences of his idea. *
>>>
>>
>> *Have you considered that cryptocurrencies enable AI to become self
>> sufficient entities, and they may be crucial to their emergence as a new
>> kind of life?*
>>
>
> *No.*
>
> *> It's basic supply & demand, if there were no longer demand for gold
>> jewelry or for hoarding it in safes and vaults, then the price would
>> decrease.*
>>
>
> *Not necessarily because in economics lots of things are non-linear. The
> demand for the metallic element Rhodium is small but the supply of Rhodium
> is even smaller, so it ends up being about three times as expensive as
> Gold. *
>

It is true that rhodium is rarer and more expensive than gold per ounce,
but that's irrelevant to my point. Consider that currently gold is more
valuable than platinum (which is significantly rarer). Can you explain why
that is?


> *> Making bitcoins is not entirely useless, it can be life saving in
>> certain situations.*
>>
>
> *Yeah I guess. Bitcoins are very useful if you want to pay a ransom to a
> kidnapper, so I suppose you could say that in some circumstances it might
> save a life.  *
>

You sound a tad biased.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260520/62678423/attachment.htm>