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

China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 325 posts

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#291

Post by ThomPete »

kasey_junk wrote: post #290
ThomPete wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its plentiful and its greener than both wind and solar. Furthermore i am assuming the point is reduction of co2, if thats the case then does it really matter in this context?

I think it matters only because there is a strong contingent of alternative energy supporters that do not see nuclear as part of the mix when talking about ‘renewables’ and for those folks the math is really hard. Conversely the math is easy with a strong nuclear mix.

Oh I get that but it also illuminates the shallowness of their position given that the reason they are against wind and solar and hate fossil is because of CO2.

Nuclear is literally the best combination of the best features from each of the other forms of energy.

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#292

Post by Shorel »

jayd16 wrote: post #78
127 wrote: post #73

When people realize that Bitcoin mining is a mechanism to prevent fraud, the energy consumption suddenly makes a lot more sense. How much waste in the world is the result of fraud and lack of trust? Quite a lot of it. That said, reducing the energy consumption of Bitcoin should be an absolute priority. Lightning Network and other such technologies help.

It doesn't really prevent fraud that isn't already a solved problem. When was the last time you had to deal with wire transfer fraud? If you buy counterfeit goods with bitcoin there's not much you can do. A credit card protects you from fraud over $50. What exactly is this bitcoin waste getting us?

Bitcoin is the first ever distributed ledger, that can store and publish transaction information for a number of adversarial parties.

All other systems are centralized, only work without adversarial parties or both.

This means Bitcoin doesn't need central banks. It doesn't need reporting transactions over 10k to some central governing entity. You can memorize a list of words that the cops can't seize in a random search from your car. It gives some freedoms to people.

However, the hash difficulty/energy consumption problem is a serious issue and many people in the community are investigating alternatives for it.

Also, take into account that the energy consumption is related to the hash calculation power available in a given moment, not to the number of transactions performed.

This also means that Bitcoin mining will consume the same amount of power even if no new transactions are being done between the owners of Bitcoin wallets.

If there's a way to make a distributed ledger that can store and publish transaction information for a number of adversarial parties without consuming the energy of an African country, I am confident someone will find it.

Many alt-coins are experiments on that regard, using several different algorithms and ideas.

However, this is still an open problem and I don't know any timeline about when it can be resolved.

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#293

Post by mrb »

Retric wrote: post #173
mrb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Bitcoin won't raise global average temperatures by 2°C. This Nature article was debunked by other researchers. I too was asked to review it (recently, post-publication) and the gist of what they did wrong in their analysis is: * They overestimate (probably by 3x-5x) the present power consumption of miners because they assume the distribution of types of mining machine is homogenous in this table: https://github.c…

> by assuming it grows linearly with the transaction rate That’s a reasonable approximation. Over time mining is paid for by transaction fees in a competitive market. If you get 2x the fees and the cost to mine stays the same, you get 2x as much mining. Granted that assumes transaction fees are ~1:1 with transaction count. However, protection from a 51% attack eventually requires 1:1 increase in mining as the value o…

"That’s a reasonable approximation"

No, because the authors don't understand how miners gain revenue. For every dollar of miners revenues, currently $0.02 come from tx fees and $0.98 come from the block reward (12.5 BTC today.) Therefore with everything remaining equal (same average fee per tx, which is the authors' assumption), if the tx rate grew 50x it would increase miners revenues to $1.98, hence only doubling revenues and power consumption.

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#294

Post by modzu »

modzu wrote: post #194
mrb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Bitcoin won't raise global average temperatures by 2°C. This Nature article was debunked by other researchers. I too was asked to review it (recently, post-publication) and the gist of what they did wrong in their analysis is: * They overestimate (probably by 3x-5x) the present power consumption of miners because they assume the distribution of types of mining machine is homogenous in this table: https://github.c…

can you please cite your source? was the refutation also published in a peer reviewed journal?

didnt think so. hundreds of comments, some lengthy, and nobody knows whats really going on? also, i mean, maybe some cynicism ought to be tolerated if misinformation is? its hard work to do real, rigorous science, which is what journals like nature represent. but then we have this echo chamber in here where its been "refuted" by internet experts in their parents basements? (allegorical). i know there are/used to be educated people on hn, not just businesspersons. where did they go? hn is ostensibly about intellectual curiosity. but you cant actually satisfy intellectual curiosity with makebelieve. someone has to stand up for the truth, and for the blood and sweat that makes discovering truth possible: the scientific method. starting from doubt or skepticism, form a hypothesis, test it: observe and predict. theorize. replicate. repeat.

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#295

Post by [deleted] »

belltaco wrote: post #287
modzu wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i thought one of the features of bitcoin was that mining would eventually become too computationally expensive -- because the total number of bitcoins is fixed. so at some point, mining does not produce coins and you're only mining to process transactions. so isn't there a plateau somewhere, relative to the throughput of the network? nb: non-expert here

Based on limited knowledge, once all the coins are mined, I think the miners then compete for transaction fees only. >mining would eventually become too computationally expensive I don't think that's true, the difficulty adjusts every two(?) weeks based on the hashrate.

[deleted]

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#296

Post by Retric »

mrb wrote: post #293
Retric wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> by assuming it grows linearly with the transaction rate That’s a reasonable approximation. Over time mining is paid for by transaction fees in a competitive market. If you get 2x the fees and the cost to mine stays the same, you get 2x as much mining. Granted that assumes transaction fees are ~1:1 with transaction count. However, protection from a 51% attack eventually requires 1:1 increase in mining as the value o…

" That’s a reasonable approximation " No, because the authors don't understand how miners gain revenue. For every dollar of miners revenues, currently $0.02 come from tx fees and $0.98 come from the block reward (12.5 BTC today.) Therefore with everything remaining equal (same average fee per tx, which is the authors' assumption), if the tx rate grew 50x it would increase miners revenues to $1.98, hence only doubling…

It’s got a fair amount of volatility. The Reward (last 24h) 1,688 + 115.2 BTC https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/ So, 115.2 / ( 1,688 + 115.2) = 6.4% not 2%.

However, looking at historical data the current fees are well below the cap. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees...

Now, currently Bitcoin can’t scale transactions so extrapolation is kind of up in the air. But, in practice if it’s going to survive it needs to create value to offset the cost of mining.

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#297

Post by turtlecloud »

davidgerard wrote: post #280
flatfilefan wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replacing an oppressive apparatus that is relying on proof of military/police power to establish trust in banking with some form of an algorithm that is relying on proof of work/energy may be energy saving at the end. Just compare how much police/military has to be maintained and related resources spent to the naked energy for mining/transactions.

> Replacing an oppressive apparatus that is relying on proof of military/police power to establish trust in banking with some form of an algorithm that is relying on proof of work/energy may be energy saving at the end. Bitcoin, 0.1% of all electricity: 7 tps THE ENTIRE REST OF CIVILISATION, 99.9% of all electricity: a whole lot more than 6993 tps.

The best comparison is with the energy used for gold mining which far exceeds bitcoin energy costs. If you look at the giant trucks used in gold mines, you will are the energy savings.

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#298

Post by mrb »

Retric wrote: post #296
mrb wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" That’s a reasonable approximation " No, because the authors don't understand how miners gain revenue. For every dollar of miners revenues, currently $0.02 come from tx fees and $0.98 come from the block reward (12.5 BTC today.) Therefore with everything remaining equal (same average fee per tx, which is the authors' assumption), if the tx rate grew 50x it would increase miners revenues to $1.98, hence only doubling…

It’s got a fair amount of volatility. The Reward (last 24h) 1,688 + 115.2 BTC https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/ So, 115.2 / ( 1,688 + 115.2) = 6.4% not 2%. However, looking at historical data the current fees are well below the cap. https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... Now, currently Bitcoin can’t scale transactions so extrapolation is kind of up in the air. But, in practice if it’s going…

Like I said in my top post, 2% is calculated from the 60-day (not 24-hour) average.

True, we will never be able to extrapolate future fees. I'm merely pointing out the authors did it in a way that is completely bogus.

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#299

Post by mrb »

mrpopo wrote: post #141
mrb wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Bitcoin won't raise global average temperatures by 2°C. This Nature article was debunked by other researchers. I too was asked to review it (recently, post-publication) and the gist of what they did wrong in their analysis is: * They overestimate (probably by 3x-5x) the present power consumption of miners because they assume the distribution of types of mining machine is homogenous in this table: https://github.c…

* They assume the proportion of CO2 emissions per kWh never improves over the next 100 years (great progress of renewables coming to a sudden stop?) I mostly agreed with the first two bullet points, but please show me a significant country that managed to reduce their CO2 emissions with renewables. For instance, in China, where a lot of Bitcoin mining happens, the share of renewables increases in many countries, but…

France emits 90% less CO2/kWh than Germany (they didn't even need renewables to achieve that, just nuclear): http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/2/11/german-e...

And according to https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 CO2 emissions per kWh have already decreased 2.58%/year between 2005 and 2016 (-25% over 11 years). That's already far better than the 1.60%/year I assumed (-80% over 100 years), further strengthening my point that these Nature authors' assumption that CO2/kWh will never improve in 100 years is utterly unrealistic.

Re: China says it wants to eliminate Bitcoin mining

#300

Post by mrb »

arcticbull wrote: post #219
plutonorm wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have half a suspicion that it's the fact that it's burning through lots of fuel that is driving it's adoption. Processes in general seem to be driven by a kind of 'pressure' between low entropy and high entropy regions. This includes life itself. If life has a purpose it is to increase the flow across these low/high entropy regions. I don't think it's too outlandish to suppose some kind of hidden process that drive…

95% of transaction data is fake. We have no idea what adoption actually looks like. [1] The bitcoin price is "based on a true story" in true Hollywood fashion. Its design makes it impossible to stop the rampant and obvious manipulation. The game is rigged. No amount of technical analysis or philosophy is going to help you predict the outcome of a rigged game. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/cbovaird/2019/03/22/95-of…

What Forbes reports as mostly fakes are exchange trades, not on-chain transactions. These are two completely different things...
Post reply on HN