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

Proof-of-work should be banned

stopburncoins.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 111 posts

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#81

Post by fastball »

egypturnash wrote: post #21
fastball wrote: post #2

> invariably brought to you by someone holding a proof-of-stake bag.

Heavens forbid that anyone who doesn't own cryptocurrency should have a studied opinion about it and its massive reliance on Proof-Of-Converting-Absurd-Amounts-Of-Power-Into-Waste-Heat. Heavens forbid that anyone who does own cryptocurrency and have concerns about said massive reliance on PoCAAoPIWH should put their money where their mouth is regarding those concerns. An absolute scandal.

Then put your name where your mouth is instead of hiding behind anonymity. Hardly a necessity in this case.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#82

Post by D13Fd »

OliverGilan wrote: post #54

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…

>Any civilization sufficiently progressing will use more and more energy

Efficiency is still a net good. Even if you don't believe that CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change, every form of electricity generation has negative side effects for society, including renewables.

Normally the benefits greatly outweigh the costs, but that's not true for proof-of-work systems when considered in light of the alternatives.

>Bitcoin could definitely be more energy efficient

Exactly. One way to do that would be to use something other than proof of work.

>Why are we attacking Bitcoin for using electricity instead of simply pushing for more renewable energy sources?

Because increasing the demand for electricity more than necessary increases the cost to all of us––both the direct economic cost in our electricity bills and the environmental and societal costs. This is true whether the energy is renewable or not.

>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

Wasteful energy use causes problems that society as a whole has to bear. Think about what would happen if we said things like "any free society that permits land ownership should permit nuclear waste disposal on any private property." It just doesn't work out, because society as a whole ends up paying the cost.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#83

Post by raclage »

smashem wrote: post #76
aetherane wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation is highly important to productive economies. Countries can default when there is no control over their money supply and inflation is needed to avoid stagnation.

All economies eventually fail due to inflation and central planning. I'm not saying we don't need national currencies, but bitcoin is the perfect hedge against central banking.

Wait how can you make that claim?

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#84

Post by fastball »

aetherane wrote: post #74
kreetx wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The positive value is that it protects from inflation.

Inflation is highly important to productive economies. Countries can default when there is no control over their money supply and inflation is needed to avoid stagnation.

This is the claim.

Unfortunately, macroeconomic theories are more religion than science.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#85

Post by smashem »

D13Fd wrote: post #82
OliverGilan wrote: post #54

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…

>Any civilization sufficiently progressing will use more and more energy Efficiency is still a net good. Even if you don't believe that CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change, every form of electricity generation has negative side effects for society, including renewables. Normally the benefits greatly outweigh the costs, but that's not true for proof-of-work systems when considered in light of the alternatives.…

> Because increasing the demand for electricity more than necessary increases the cost to all of us––both the direct economic cost in our electricity bills and the environmental and societal costs. This is true whether the energy is renewable or not.

If my mining operation is completely disconnected from the grid, how will that have any impact on grid supply pricing? (not focused on the upfront capital or operational costs, just the mining energy itself)

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#86

Post by raclage »

mjlawson wrote: post #5
fastball wrote: post #2

> invariably brought to you by someone holding a proof-of-stake bag.

That's my take here as well. It's hard to take this seriously and I refuse to back this when it's posted anonymously, although I agree with the sentiment behind it.

Is this really the type of thing where an anonymous author can't have any credibility? It's an analysis of bitcoin and its energy use not a claim about personal experience.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#87

Post by nullc »

shawnz wrote: post #80
burlesona wrote: post #25

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…

The pro-proof-of-stake argument is that every other system is inherently already like that: For example with proof-of-work, the richest can already afford the most hardware which gets them the most earnings. But actually with proof-of-work it's even worse, because it is a non-linear relationship as to what kind of mining hardware you can afford (richer can afford exponentially more efficient hardware). So proof-of-st…

For proof of work the cost of the hardware is substantially irrelevant, it's eclipsed by energy costs after a month or two of operation.

POS proposals all have participatory floors. E.g. the ethereum proposal requires participants lock up about $60,000 worth of ethereum to participate.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#88

Post by D13Fd »

smashem wrote: post #85
D13Fd wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Any civilization sufficiently progressing will use more and more energy Efficiency is still a net good. Even if you don't believe that CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change, every form of electricity generation has negative side effects for society, including renewables. Normally the benefits greatly outweigh the costs, but that's not true for proof-of-work systems when considered in light of the alternatives.…

> Because increasing the demand for electricity more than necessary increases the cost to all of us––both the direct economic cost in our electricity bills and the environmental and societal costs. This is true whether the energy is renewable or not. If my mining operation is completely disconnected from the grid, how will that have any impact on grid supply pricing? (not focused on the upfront capital or operational…

I wouldn't be worried about off-grid systems personally. That seems like a fair way to reduce the negative side effects.

But, to answer your question, even if 100% of mining were off-grid:

1) Setting up and maintaining a cryptocurrency mining operation still takes up tons of resources, resulting in scarcity and higher prices (see, e.g.: many gamers can't buy GPUs right now)

2) This is likely minor, but the land taken up by your cryptocurrency mining operation could be put to more productive use, even if unmaintained (acting as a carbon sink).

3) Even an off-grid solar operation has many environmental impacts, including all of the on-grid energy that went into making that equipment, all of the pollution caused by manufacture, and all of the use of society's infrastructure that the manufacturing tied up.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#89

Post by shawnz »

nullc wrote: post #87
shawnz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pro-proof-of-stake argument is that every other system is inherently already like that: For example with proof-of-work, the richest can already afford the most hardware which gets them the most earnings. But actually with proof-of-work it's even worse, because it is a non-linear relationship as to what kind of mining hardware you can afford (richer can afford exponentially more efficient hardware). So proof-of-st…

For proof of work the cost of the hardware is substantially irrelevant, it's eclipsed by energy costs after a month or two of operation. POS proposals all have participatory floors. E.g. the ethereum proposal requires participants lock up about $60,000 worth of ethereum to participate.

True, but staking pools might help mitigate the latter issue.

Re: Proof-of-work should be banned

#90

Post by smashem »

raclage wrote: post #83
smashem wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All economies eventually fail due to inflation and central planning. I'm not saying we don't need national currencies, but bitcoin is the perfect hedge against central banking.

Wait how can you make that claim?

Just look back at all of the fallen economies. They fall from inflation.

"Although the Emperor Constantine (reigned AD 306-337) is considered by many to be among the greatest of the later Roman emperors, he was unable to fix the failing Roman economy. The inflation persisted for nearly two hundred more years, during which time taxes were massively increased. Internal problems were further compounded by the economic situation, such as the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, which often led to mob riots. Eventually, the Roman government was unable to pay its armies, which then often turned their swords on Rome itself. In the end, it was primarily Germanic tribes, such as the Goths and Vandals, who dealt the final death blows to Rome, but that would not have been possible if Rome’s economy were not weakened by a particularly excessive and long lasting inflationary cycle."

https://dailyhistory.org/What_Role_Did_Inflation_Play_in_the...

"The Ottoman economy was disrupted by inflation, caused by the influx of precious metals into Europe from the Americas and by an increasing imbalance of trade between East and West. As the treasury lost more of its revenues to the depredations of the devşirme, it began to meet its obligations by debasing the coinage, sharply increasing taxes, and resorting to confiscations, all of which only worsened the situation."

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire/The-decline-...

"Wampum is a traditional shell bead of the Eastern Woodlands tribes of Native Americans... Eventually, the Colonists applied their technologies to more efficiently produce wampum, which caused inflation and ultimately its obsolescence as currency."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampum

"The Nazis planned to bomb Britain with clouds of forged bank notes."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonianmag/nazis-planned-...

I could go on and on..

Post reply on HN