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

Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

digiconomist.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 463 posts

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#111

Post by danfo »

k-ian wrote: post #88
danfo wrote: post #71

Shut it down. Can a couple of these people agree that a well-coordinated merge & release to sabotage proof of work is ethical. https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people

That would be difficult to pull off. bitcoin code merges are highly scrutinized, and disagreements in blockchain projects just result in forks and new networks. A better way would be a global ban coordinated among every nation, and even then that would be difficult to pull off.

Difficult to pull off, but they could make it happen.

The earned value would need to transition to the non-proof-of-work favoured network.

Turmoil would take care of the $ value of the forks (crypto confidence is rattled enough as it is)

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#112

Post by spookthesunset »

sword_smith wrote: post #52

This does not seem to include transactions on the Bitcoin Lightning network which are transaction that are handled offchain so they are not included in blocks. I don't have the exact number of lightning transaction ocurring but it is the Bitcoin Core developers' plan that the scaling to thousand of transactions per second will and should take place on the lightning network (this is where they differ from their compet…

> Bitcoin is still a technology in its infancy ten years after being started.

Meanwhile Apple introduced the first version of the iPhone, completely transforming the mobile landscape.

Meanwhile, Uber and lyft upended the taxi market completely.

Meanwhile, we have private companies sending payloads to the space station

Meanwhile, electric cars are increasingly becoming mainstream.

In what possible way can you claim bitcoin is “in its infancy”?

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#113

Post by cwkoss »

y3k wrote: post #19

One of the main reasons why I dropped BTC. "Getting rich" at cost of the environment (extremely high resource consumption)? No thanks, I'd rather leave that world for future generations.

I think the traditional stock market has significantly greater environmental externalities, even proportionally to net value.

Greed creates waste in all venues.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#114

Post by aey »

spookthesunset wrote: post #91
cwkoss wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PoS opens up new threat models concerning the tyranny of the majority. PoW utilizes the honest indicator of un-forgeable expense to mitigate this class of risks.

A class of risks that the normal financial system doesn’t have. My bank doesn’t expose me to “double spend” attacks.

At the cost of 2 trillion a year. Or 1 trillion if if you only count service fees and not liquidity.

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/financi...

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#115

Post by cwkoss »

danfo wrote: post #106
kinghajj wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you got a maintainer to commit and release code to disable PoW, you'd still have to get enough node operators to update, which... I doubt would happen.

You may not be able to be so forthcoming about the transition

You greatly underestimate the resiliency of the Bitcoin network.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#116

Post by spookthesunset »

aeternum wrote: post #110
spookthesunset wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is absolutely wasteful to the vast majority of the population on earth. It provides no benefit to them, and makes their energy bill (and video card bill) go up.

The increased electricity demand may drive research funding resulting in more efficient energy production.

LOL. Sure, but that is only being done because bitcoin gobbled up all the electricity that could have been used doing useful things like running data centers, smelting aluminum, air conditioning homes, etc.

Bitcoin is a drain on the electrical system. You are basically arguing that it is okay to litter because it will create jobs and spawn new anti-litter technology.

Doesn’t work that way, sorry.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#117

Post by spookthesunset »

kinghajj wrote: post #94
spookthesunset wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love when bitcoin promoters claim that bitcoins massive waste of energy is okay cause “it’s totally renewable”. Setting aside the non-trivial ecological damage caused by dams.... all that renewable energy could have been used to power something that actually adds value to society. Instead it is getting flushed down the toilet solving useless math problems so that a relative handful of people can milk a larger set o…

> all that renewable energy could have been used to power something that actually adds value to society. If the miners are using excess production, then by definition, that power could not have been used for anything else; otherwise, some consumer in the grid would have used it!

And you say they are using “excess energy” based on what? What is “excess energy” anyway?

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#118

Post by cwkoss »

DethNinja wrote: post #84
iikoolpp wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't realise cash was suddenly outlawed

Don’t worry it won’t be suddenly outlawed but all the governments will gradually outlaw it as it directly threatens their power. I hope somebody manages to release a conscious AI before they manage to completely outlaw it, otherwise it will be very hard to fight against tyrannical governments.

India suddenly demonetized a large portion of circulating cash without warning.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/08/india-withdraw...

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#120

Post by spookthesunset »

aey wrote: post #114
spookthesunset wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A class of risks that the normal financial system doesn’t have. My bank doesn’t expose me to “double spend” attacks.

At the cost of 2 trillion a year. Or 1 trillion if if you only count service fees and not liquidity. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/financi...

Care to actually quote where the banks are spending $2 trillion a year to stop double spends?
Post reply on HN