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

261–270 of 463 posts

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#261

Post by CaptainZapp »

celticninja wrote: post #244
CaptainZapp wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except I'd put far more stock into gold coins (or gold in general) as a store of value. But that's just me.

And there are enough people that take the converse position, that allows bitcoin to grow

Comparing this chart[1] with the chart found on this page[2] I very much doubt that assessment, specifically in terms of volatility.

Note the very, very different scale of those charts.

[1] https://goldprice.org/de/gold-price-history.html [2] https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Bitcoin_history

edit: clarification

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#262

Post by nightcracker »

konschubert wrote: post #237
gruez wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>trust-based models (like Stellar) What you're describing is basically Libra with slightly better entities backing it. Transactions can be reversed by those "trusted entities" with no recourse by you and at no cost to them. At least with PoW and PoS (to an extent), attempting to reverse transactions has a cost. Speaking of PoS, were the issues with PoS ever solved? Specifically the "nothing at stake" problem. The Wik…

That’s not true. YOU can create your own node and decide who YOU trust.

In exactly the same way I can print Schrute bucks and distribute it to people I trust.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#263

Post by mrb »

me551ah wrote: post #193

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this computing power is in the form of custom ASIC's, but the figure is really staggering. And all of the 80704290.84 Petaflops, consume 73.12 TWh to repeatedly calculate SHA256 ! What could be the world's most powerful network does absolutely nothing but crunch h…

It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed.

There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties.

Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is correct after a network split. There are many other unsolved problems. That's why Ethereum is years behind schedule in designing and deploying PoS.

Replacing PoW with a useful algorithm (eg. protein folding) loses decentralization (a central trusted authority must verify/sample who performs the work correctly).

Trust-based systems (Stellar, Libra) lose censorship-resistance.

A "dumb" PoW is literally the only practical solution.

If the social benefits of a cryptocurrency are worth the computational power, and if PoW is the only technical solution to implement it, then by definition PoW isn't wasteful.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#264

Post by ackbar03 »

mrb wrote: post #263
me551ah wrote: post #193

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this computing power is in the form of custom ASIC's, but the figure is really staggering. And all of the 80704290.84 Petaflops, consume 73.12 TWh to repeatedly calculate SHA256 ! What could be the world's most powerful network does absolutely nothing but crunch h…

It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed. There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties. Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is corre…

Yes but for what? Is this proof of stake worth how many dollars spent in energy consumption?

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#265

Post by danmaz74 »

mrb wrote: post #263
me551ah wrote: post #193

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this computing power is in the form of custom ASIC's, but the figure is really staggering. And all of the 80704290.84 Petaflops, consume 73.12 TWh to repeatedly calculate SHA256 ! What could be the world's most powerful network does absolutely nothing but crunch h…

It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed. There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties. Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is corre…

If the only way to have a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency is to waste an inordinate amount of energy and increase our global warming and pollution problems, then we'll have to do without that kind of digital currency. It's a matter of priorities.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#266

Post by scarejunba »

bdcravens wrote: post #200
puranjay wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know what problem Bitcoin is solving anymore. I haven't seen a single website accepting Bitcoin as a payment in the last whole year.

We were an early adopter of Stripe’s Bitcoin integration. I even was sent a Stripe t-shirt for finding bugs in their docs. In the entire time until Stripe ended the integration, we never received a single payment using Bitcoin.

Tbh I'm pretty sure that people who ask for BTC never intend to pay. It's just another deflection in a long list from people who won't pay. I now see it as all kinda wasted effort. Probably should just focus on making things better for the guys with the dollars rather than the guys who promise the money if you'll only do X.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#267

Post by cwkoss »

paulmd wrote: post #236
cwkoss wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The financial sector is 20% of global GDP. Bitcoin is much less than 20% of world carbon emissions. Further, fiduciary duty of corporations to maximize shareholder profit has led to almost every environmentally harmful exploit of externalities. I'd argue that the stock market is fundamentally responsible for 99% of all pollution.

Financial sector does not produce 20% of carbon emissions. They are maybe 0.1%. The act of trading on exchanges is significantly more efficient than the act of trading on blockchain. Because there really is no need for an untrusted ledger when there is the USG certifying that the NYSE and NASDAQ will not execute erroneous trades. Bitcoin does not eliminate the idea of fiduciary duty. Bitcoin holders still expect bitc…

> Because there really is no need for an untrusted ledger when there is the USG certifying that the NYSE and NASDAQ will not execute erroneous trades.

What is the emission cost of the system which enables this functionality?

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#268

Post by fierarul »

sodafountan wrote: post #184
puranjay wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know what problem Bitcoin is solving anymore. I haven't seen a single website accepting Bitcoin as a payment in the last whole year.

It's solving a much much bigger problem than electronic payments (which was never really a problem in the first place unless you're overly concerned about privacy). We have a major problem with inflation in this world, you can't just put your money somewhere and have it retain its value anymore and it hasn't been like that for years, we're forced to play the stock market game which just consolidates power to big corp…

> we're forced to play the stock market game which just consolidates power to big corporations and leaves a lot of people all over the world left behind

We at least know the names of big corporations. Otherwise "we're forced to play the BitCoin game which just consolidates power to big anonymous holders and leaves a lot of people all over the world left behind".

85% of the BitCoins have already been mined. It's beyond the reach of people to participate in mining. What's left is pure speculation, based on the available supply. There's also a "culture" of HODL which means the actual exchange rate is determined by very few (big) sellers.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#269

Post by rax0m »

xg15 wrote: post #230
shan224 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to see any POS that doesnt devolve into centralization or obfuscated POW. You say pointless computation. I say layers on layers of security protecting the most sound monetary policy in human history

> protecting the most sound monetary policy in human history That's a political opinion. But regardless of its validity, I'm not convinced that this justifies a single Bitcoin transaction producing as much CO2 as 700,000 Visa transactions.

Comparing Visa transactions to Bitcoin transactions is definitely comparing apples to oranges.

A Bitcoin transaction on the blockchain is layer 1. A visa transaction is layer 3 or 4?

Lightning network is layer 2 and you could have >700,000 transactions in a lightning channel before settling on chain, so there you go Bitcoin layer 2 is more energy efficient than the common financial system layer 4.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#270

Post by davidgerard »

reportgunner wrote: post #260
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #3

I saw this a couple days ago when @arcticbull mentioned it here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21256112 Jaw dropping. Converted to Telsa Model S miles as per https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S Comes out to about 2000 miles or 3200 kilometers for one Bitcoin transaction. Astounding.

It does not really matter if it's 2 miles or 2 million miles per bitcoin transaction. You cannot stop bitcoin. Edit: You would end up burning even more if you tried to stop it.

nah, there's approaches. I meet with politicians and suggest a carbon tax on crypto exchange conversion to fiat - miners have to cash out, after all.

You have to tax the clean coins too, otherwise buyers will just exchange dirtycoin for cleancoin before cashing out.

Post reply on HN