51–60 of 111 posts
Nobody has any right to tell me what kind of math I can on processors I own powered by electricity that I bought.
Technically they do but I agree that these calls for banning Bitcoin because it consumes energy are anti-freedom when considering that its consumption of energy is a drop in the bucket in grand scheme of things.
> Just ask that bitcoin and other switch to PoS! It will not be immediate, so the current investments in hardware can be repaid, and there will be no value lost. Miners almost certainly won't see it that way. "Oh so now you say that I can recoup my capital investment until 12/31/2024? Great, I will happily sign blocks that mark a transition to proof-of-stake." Miners would fork the coin at best. Or, rather, this new…
So we all agree that in one form or the other, the miners are parasitizing the projects, bringing inertia?
Kinda strong words, I know, but If you can't even progress in the PoW world, you have a problem. How to solve it?
This is like saying incandescent light bulbs should be banned. Sure, it’s a sensible thing to say once you have unilaterally-better bulbs already fully commercialized and in mass production. (And this happened with CFLs and then LED bulbs; and then we did ban incandescents, here in Canada and in many other places.) But we’re not at that “fully commercialized and in mass production” inflection point yet with Proof-of-…
> This is like saying incandescent light bulbs should be banned They are banned in the EU, and are slowly being banned in the US.
1) Any civilization sufficiently progressing will use more and more energy. Bitcoin could definitely be more energy efficient but even without it our society would still increase our energy usage over time.
2) The issue people have with electricity usage isn’t the actual usage of the electricity but how it’s generated. Why are we attacking Bitcoin for using electricity instead of simply pushing for more renewable energy sources?
3) For Bitcoin miners to maximize profit they need the cheapest elictricity and now that solar provides the cheapest energ per watt in history miners are actually incentivized to build out more solar.
At the end of the day it seems to me that any free society that supplies energy as a service shouldn’t be dictating what individuals do with that electricity as long as they pay for it. If you’re concerned that electricity doesn’t properly price externalities then your issue is with the electricity provider, not Bitcoin miners.
Nobody has any right to tell me what kind of math I can on processors I own powered by electricity that I bought.
Technically they do but I agree that these calls for banning Bitcoin because it consumes energy are anti-freedom when considering that its consumption of energy is a drop in the bucket in grand scheme of things.
Nobody has any right to tell me what kind of math I can on processors I own powered by electricity that I bought.
You might have already waived your "right" to do whatever you want with the electricity you buy.
Actual question as I’m not too familiar with proof of stake. As described in the article, all that matters is how much is in your wallet... Doesn’t that seem ripe for hyper capitalist abuse? I realize the article is just offering a simplified explanation, but the idea that whoever has the most money directly controls the money supply itself seems... well, not ideal? So could anyone elaborate on what else about proof…
Schemes which claim to have 'proven' the security of POS do so by assuming that you externally have a secure consensus mechanism (or one in disguise, e.g. a network which delivers all messages in the same order to all users), resulting in a completely tautological "proof".
For more info on the unsoundness of POS: https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
The reason you see it as part of the plans of some altcoins is that the creators of these coins wrote into their ledgers enormous numbers of coins for themselves, and are now stuck with largely illiquid billion dollar "investments" that they can't substantially sell without collapsing their markets and which aren't earning interest-- using POS gives them an excuse to guarantee themselves a return. The fact that it locks others out of the consensus or undermines the security is just collateral damage.
As a bonus it also creates a new avenue to pump their systems vs alternatives which are actually trying to remain secure and decentralized. I expect to see HN and other venues flooded with more anonymously authored articles promoting this stuff in the coming years.
This is like saying incandescent light bulbs should be banned. Sure, it’s a sensible thing to say once you have unilaterally-better bulbs already fully commercialized and in mass production. (And this happened with CFLs and then LED bulbs; and then we did ban incandescents, here in Canada and in many other places.) But we’re not at that “fully commercialized and in mass production” inflection point yet with Proof-of-…
I really don’t understand this attack on Bitcoin. It seems to be all the rage nowadays to lament the effects of Bitcoin’s electricity usage on the environment but a couple things seem true to me. 1) Any civilization sufficiently progressing will use more and more energy. Bitcoin could definitely be more energy efficient but even without it our society would still increase our energy usage over time. 2) The issue peop…
It's unlikely that there will be any real attempt to regulate bitcoin while it enables the circumvention of capital controls and reliably brings wealth and investment into rich countries.
because governments love "the circumvention of capital controls" ?