Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

digiconomist.net

461–463 of 463 posts

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#461
post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You means all PoW/PoS cryptocurrencies? Because consensus does NOT have something like an 51% attack especially not at 51%. Majority is defined as 80% for a reason. Colluding 51% of selected validators NEVER result in anything comparable to a 51% attack on a PoW network. Neither double spend nor reversing is possible with 51%. I already described the "harm" someone could do with 51%. Temporary Halt progress. Temporar…

> And even if they do you still could be on the wrong chain because of network problems etc. If you only see one chain you don't even know if there is another chain. this is the key thing you don't understand, i don't even need to respond to the rest of your message because of it. with PoW even if i see only one chain i can absolutely objectively detect if something cheesy is going on by observing the difficulty of t…

I must disagree with that.

Detecting if something is cheesy in the chain is not enough. The chain you see can be totally fine nothing cheesy you could "objectively detect" yet the chain you don't see is longer and everyone will switch there. Your "objectively detected" nothing is totally pointless in this case.

Or what about Tx censorship. A valid Tx with reasonable fee isn't included because miners/mining pools colluded to not process that Tx. You objectively detected nothing because everything on the chain is completely correct. You can't detect what isn't there.

You still come around with PoS lol dude I never in the whole thread compared PoW to PoS. PoS is totally irrelevant. If it would not exist PoW would still have the same flaws.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#462
post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And even if they do you still could be on the wrong chain because of network problems etc. If you only see one chain you don't even know if there is another chain. this is the key thing you don't understand, i don't even need to respond to the rest of your message because of it. with PoW even if i see only one chain i can absolutely objectively detect if something cheesy is going on by observing the difficulty of t…

I must disagree with that. Detecting if something is cheesy in the chain is not enough. The chain you see can be totally fine nothing cheesy you could "objectively detect" yet the chain you don't see is longer and everyone will switch there. Your "objectively detected" nothing is totally pointless in this case. Or what about Tx censorship. A valid Tx with reasonable fee isn't included because miners/mining pools coll…

> yet the chain you don't see is longer and everyone will switch there

No. No it can’t. No it can’t without somebody spinning up 100%+ more hashrate. And in PoS it totally can because there is no objective truth measure attached to it.

And again, 51% attacks are not solvable in principle and all your criticisms are basically “but what if your chain gets 51% attacked?”. Well duh, 51% attacked system gets destroyed, no matter if it’s PoS or PoW, the issue is that PoS gets destroyed in many more scenarios, not just the equivalent of apocalypse.

And you did bring up PoS multiple times. If you didn’t - we would t be having this conversation at all.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would people no longer mining make bitcoin useless? There's a supply of existing bitcoins that can be split to ludicrous degrees. Scarcity is already enforced by the difficulty, and a huge difficulty jump won't affect that. If bitcoin can't survive without mining (which IIRC isn't related to transactional processing or any actual use of bitcoins), then bitcoin has a guaranteed uselessness point when the difficult…

> Why would people no longer mining make bitcoin useless? Because mining is what secures the network. > which IIRC isn't related to transactional processing Transactions are confirmed by being included in mined blocks. The amount of compute power burned to mine that block, and the following blocks, is what prevents someone from pretending a different transaction (moving the money somewhere else - a double-spend) happ…

I did not know mining was performing blockchain transactional comps. I thought it was a scarcity mechanism.

Thus BTC is a bankrupt idea, since it assumes geometric growth in energy/computation. Time to sell!

Post reply on HN