Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 839 posts

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#601

Post by eeZah7Ux »

kmkemp wrote: post #414
ForHackernews wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is a terrible way to use energy. It's deliberately inefficient, and it's a constant arms race to become even more inefficient . You're literally killing the planet to enable...what? Tax evasion? Selling drugs and child porn? It's a moral and ecological atrocity. I agree that capping and/or taxing carbon emissions is the right policy approach, but I would seriously question the values of any humans who then de…

A correction - bitcoin is not anonymous enough to enable any of the use cases you mentioned. But that misses the points - tools can't be blamed for secondary use cases - do you blame physical dollars for enabling child porn? As far as our carbon budget, how we choose to create energy and how much energy something uses are unrelated concepts. If people pay a proper price for energy that reflects its scarcity and exter…

> tools can't be blamed for secondary use cases

Hold on. Technology (and knowledge in general) is ethically neutral.

The action of researching and developing it in a specific way, time and place in never ethically [and politically] neutral.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#602

Post by johnisgood »

ForHackernews wrote: post #394
SilasX wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don't. Bitcoin is one way to use energy. There are hundreds of thousands of other ways. When you say Bitcoin "hurts the environment", what, concretely do you mean? Presumably, you mean it in a stronger sense than "using energy to produce food hurts the environment" or "using energy to run an ER hurts the environment". That is, you think that relative to the benefit provided , the use of (harmful) energy to run…

Bitcoin is a terrible way to use energy. It's deliberately inefficient, and it's a constant arms race to become even more inefficient . You're literally killing the planet to enable...what? Tax evasion? Selling drugs and child porn? It's a moral and ecological atrocity. I agree that capping and/or taxing carbon emissions is the right policy approach, but I would seriously question the values of any humans who then de…

> You're literally killing the planet to enable...what? Tax evasion? Selling drugs and child porn?

Wow, gotta be one of the best arguments on HN.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#603

Post by johnisgood »

DigiMortal wrote: post #580
good-idea wrote: post #242

I'm shocked and disheartened by how infrequently environmental concerns are brought up when discussing crypto. Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake, security, storage size - these are problems for the network and those that want to see it become a real part of our economy. (I am one of those) But the amount of energy being used to mine bitcoin is a real problem - it's not just a technical challenge (like the problems abov…

The only reality for the human race is space expansion. Make more energy.

Or... ITER.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#604

Post by Ar-Curunir »

throwaway415415 wrote: post #257
Ar-Curunir wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coda takes an entirely different cryptographic approach than Algorand. Different layers of solutions.

No it doesn't. Coda can work with Algorand's byzantine agreement protocol.

Sure, but Coda targets a different scalability bottleneck.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#605

Post by woodruffw »

SilasX wrote: post #381
good-idea wrote: post #242

I'm shocked and disheartened by how infrequently environmental concerns are brought up when discussing crypto. Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake, security, storage size - these are problems for the network and those that want to see it become a real part of our economy. (I am one of those) But the amount of energy being used to mine bitcoin is a real problem - it's not just a technical challenge (like the problems abov…

No, we don't. Bitcoin is one way to use energy. There are hundreds of thousands of other ways. When you say Bitcoin "hurts the environment", what, concretely do you mean? Presumably, you mean it in a stronger sense than "using energy to produce food hurts the environment" or "using energy to run an ER hurts the environment". That is, you think that relative to the benefit provided , the use of (harmful) energy to run…

> There is no reason to single out Bitcoin. To blame it for environmental problems is special pleading or privileging a hypothesis.

It's not special pleading if I'm equally annoyed by Ferraris and other environmentally disastrous forms of conspicuous consumption. I don't know enough about Hello Kitty backpacks to have a serious reason to be against them.

It's perfectly consistent for me or anyone else to leave a negative comment about Bitcoin on an online forum and then as much or far more to tackle a different issue that I/they consider pressing. And this, largely, is how it seems to be playing out: nobody has been arrested for using wasteful PoW schemes yet, because we have bigger fish to fry.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#606

Post by Ar-Curunir »

orthecreedence wrote: post #399
SilasX wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don't. Bitcoin is one way to use energy. There are hundreds of thousands of other ways. When you say Bitcoin "hurts the environment", what, concretely do you mean? Presumably, you mean it in a stronger sense than "using energy to produce food hurts the environment" or "using energy to run an ER hurts the environment". That is, you think that relative to the benefit provided , the use of (harmful) energy to run…

An enormous amount of energy used to support a tiny minority of people participating in a highly-manipulated wealth redistribution mechanism is, objectively, a complete fucking waste. You cannot look at bitcoin by any measure and say that it's a practical success for any of its goals. And given the amount of energy it uses to perpetuate its own failure, it's nearly sinful to keep it going. That said, I do support som…

> An enormous amount of energy used to support a tiny minority of people participating in a highly-manipulated wealth redistribution mechanism is, objectively, a complete fucking waste.

You're just describing capitalism there ;)

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#607

Post by return0 »

ckastner wrote: post #276
sbenitoj wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely — I would gladly trade all my gains for a world where governments have no control over the creation and regulation of money.

> I would gladly trade all my gains for a world where governments have no control over the creation and regulation of money. In that world, there would also be nothing to stop anyone else from just taking your money by force and without any consequences. The loudest voices against government regulation of finance usually belong to those with the least understanding of it. Most of the regulation is just there to prote…

> by force and without any consequences.

if that 's the only problem with cryptocurrencies, it can easily be solved with insurance

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#608

Post by tomglynch »

orthecreedence wrote: post #574
ecwilson wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot look at bitcoin by any measure and say that it's a practical success for any of its goals. I can memorize 20 words and cross whatever border I want with $100 million in my brain, and full confidence that that money is mine . That's pretty damn cool. > I do support some form of decentralized currency. Not because people are ever going to be smart enough to be their own bank or because I think some currenc…

> I can memorize 20 words and cross whatever border I want with $100 million in my brain, and full confidence that that money is mine. That's pretty damn cool. No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless. > It sounds like you're projecting what you think Bitcoin should be. Probably, yes. Bitcoin is a failed project. It spawned man…

> No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless.

From an outside perspective, I don't think it's worth continuing the discussion as is. Perhaps you should both come back in a few hours when everyone is a bit calmer.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#609

Post by TomMckenny »

SilasX wrote: post #381
good-idea wrote: post #242

I'm shocked and disheartened by how infrequently environmental concerns are brought up when discussing crypto. Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake, security, storage size - these are problems for the network and those that want to see it become a real part of our economy. (I am one of those) But the amount of energy being used to mine bitcoin is a real problem - it's not just a technical challenge (like the problems abov…

No, we don't. Bitcoin is one way to use energy. There are hundreds of thousands of other ways. When you say Bitcoin "hurts the environment", what, concretely do you mean? Presumably, you mean it in a stronger sense than "using energy to produce food hurts the environment" or "using energy to run an ER hurts the environment". That is, you think that relative to the benefit provided , the use of (harmful) energy to run…

But apparently there is some point where a large enough majority converts an ethic from subjective into objective. For example "murder is wrong" is considered objectively true even though serial killers my disagree.

And at least in broad strokes, it is possible to determine benefit to harm ratios. It is esntially uncontroversial to say "Coal Rollers"[1] do more harm relative to good than candy manufacturing or face lifts.

And a cap/tax carbon emissions would be great. But that hasn't happened, effectively isn't going to anytime soon and is more complex than it seems. Consider that spikes in green energy use will drive its price such that petroleum becomes more attractive in spite of a tax. And there is no way to correctly price carbon emissions when the effect will be felt by hundreds of generations and the extent of the harm is still unknown. It is, after all, simpler to try to persuade a smaller interest just to stop mining (even though that too has almost no chance of happening).

I have no idea whether Bitcoin is being unfairly singled out or not. But since the thread is about mining efficiency, it is the logical topic rather than say deforestation.

So it's not a-priori impossible that it does more harm than good. And even if not a catastrophic problem, surely it would still be nice to reduce the harm if possible.

[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/conservatives-purposely-maki...

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#610

Post by lvs »

SilasX wrote: post #381
good-idea wrote: post #242

I'm shocked and disheartened by how infrequently environmental concerns are brought up when discussing crypto. Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake, security, storage size - these are problems for the network and those that want to see it become a real part of our economy. (I am one of those) But the amount of energy being used to mine bitcoin is a real problem - it's not just a technical challenge (like the problems abov…

No, we don't. Bitcoin is one way to use energy. There are hundreds of thousands of other ways. When you say Bitcoin "hurts the environment", what, concretely do you mean? Presumably, you mean it in a stronger sense than "using energy to produce food hurts the environment" or "using energy to run an ER hurts the environment". That is, you think that relative to the benefit provided , the use of (harmful) energy to run…

This is a long-winded argument that says only that Bitcoin shouldn't be singled out as a waste of energy. Fine, many things are also wasteful and pointless, but that doesn't absolve Bitcoin of anything.
Post reply on HN