"So, there are no peer-reviewed, published research on this?"
They are coming. At least one counter-study should imminently be published (I am one of the reviewers.) I am sure more are coming. Patience :)
"How do we know it is 60-70% as you claim?"
As I already said: this has been neatly researched and presented by the team lead by Christian Stoll in https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 Read their Supplementary Data, tab "3.4 IPO filing analysis"
This dominance of the S9 is actually a point where all market researchers unanimously agree on. I am surprised you seem to think it's a contentious point.
"Because it looks like you are drawing the same line assumption which the paper does regarding transaction fees and power growth"
Not the same line. The researchers assumed tx fees represent as of today 100% of mining revenues when it's really 2% and they extrapolate from here (gross overestimation). Whereas I'm assuming the current CO₂/kWh trend slows down (underestimation).
"And how much of the hash rate does France generate? Or how much of China's energy in the future is going to come from nuclear power (assuming they remain the country with largest hashrate)."
My point was that all we need is for present-day nuclear technology to be adopted by a good proportion of electricity generators over the next 100 years, and this would easily reduce CO2 emissions per kWh by 80%.
You ask a lot of "how do we know that", but the same question applies to your position: "How do we know there will be zero CO2/kWh improvements over the next 100 years?" "How do we know the market share of the Antminer S9 is 1/62 = 1.6% (because there are 62 rows in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/...)?" Neither you nor these Nature Climate Change researchers provide any justification, whereas I do.
They are coming. At least one counter-study should imminently be published (I am one of the reviewers.) I am sure more are coming. Patience :)
"How do we know it is 60-70% as you claim?"
As I already said: this has been neatly researched and presented by the team lead by Christian Stoll in https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 Read their Supplementary Data, tab "3.4 IPO filing analysis" This dominance of the S9 is actually a point where all market researchers unanimously agree on. I am surprised you seem to think it's a contentious point.
"Because it looks like you are drawing the same line assumption which the paper does regarding transaction fees and power growth"
Not the same line. The researchers assumed tx fees represent as of today 100% of mining revenues when it's really 2% and they extrapolate from here (gross overestimation). Whereas I'm assuming the current CO₂/kWh trend slows down (underestimation).
"And how much of the hash rate does France generate? Or how much of China's energy in the future is going to come from nuclear power (assuming they remain the country with largest hashrate)."
My point was that all we need is for present-day nuclear technology to be adopted by a good proportion of electricity generators over the next 100 years, and this would easily reduce CO2 emissions per kWh by 80%.
You ask a lot of "how do we know that", but the same question applies to your position: "How do we know there will be zero CO2/kWh improvements over the next 100 years?" "How do we know the market share of the Antminer S9 is 1/62 = 1.6% (because there are 62 rows in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/...)?" Neither you nor these Nature Climate Change researchers provide any justification, whereas I do.