161–170 of 431 posts
Is bitcoin really decentralized if mining and nodes are centralized?
No. True decentralization requires proof of person. Proof of work, stake, capacity, etc. all make it possible for a single person to buy their way into higher voting power.
A good reminder that Bitcoin runs on cheap renewables is BS. See also miners buying gas power plants in New York.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26828479
Has anyone tried to calculate the energy expenditure of the fiat currency system as a comparison, ideally per "unit worth" (whatever that might be) since fiat still vastly outcapitalises cryptocurrency?
A better comparison would be gold versus Bitcoin, as they’re both similarly decentralized. Just comparing energy consumption between the two probably wouldn’t make sense, though, as gold mining e.g. ruins vast areas of land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a sloppy counterfactual, because that number could, and should, have been close to zero already! Yes, things are improving slowly. Yes, it is still crappy compared to the smart play.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Coal and nuclear are fairly interchangeable. Since nuclear was shut down and some coal remains, it’s fairly clear Germany chose coal over nuclear for the medium term.
And Germany did not "chose coal over nuclear". While they have reduced nuclear production by about 30 TWh in the last 7 years, they have slashed coal-based electricity production by far more - 140 TWh - in the same period.
And it's not like Germany is bucking some trend with respect to nuclear - nuclear has been in decline globally since its peak in the mid 1980s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also a good time to point out that there are energy efficient blockchains that work differently from bitcoin -- not all crypto is as power hungry (some use disk space, or memory, or even just the tokens themselves to replace bitcoin's proof of work model).
So point them out, please. One that is efficient on all levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
National Security. Really?! So you use up a limited resource during peace times to have less of it during war times? Is that your logic?
What kind of sovereignty do you have if a powerful neighbour can put your people to freeze in the winter by cutting your energy supplies, forcing you to accept their conditions? National security is more than weapons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems far easier and cheaper to keep the nukes running and just stockpile, like, a suitcase worth of uranium.
And in the event of an attack you just hope they won't target nuclear power plants to recreate Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has anyone tried to calculate the energy expenditure of the fiat currency system as a comparison, ideally per "unit worth" (whatever that might be) since fiat still vastly outcapitalises cryptocurrency?
Yes, and it’s vastly less than Bitcoin. Simply because it’s centralized, and a centralized system is always more efficient than a decentralized one. It’s a well known trade off. A better comparison would be gold versus Bitcoin, as they’re both similarly decentralized. Just comparing energy consumption between the two probably wouldn’t make sense, though, as gold mining e.g. ruins vast areas of land.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a sloppy counterfactual, because that number could, and should, have been close to zero already! Yes, things are improving slowly. Yes, it is still crappy compared to the smart play.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. Coal and nuclear are fairly interchangeable. Since nuclear was shut down and some coal remains, it’s fairly clear Germany chose coal over nuclear for the medium term.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically speaking, western China has a lot of renewable power and not as much demand for it as eastern China. If they were mining in western China to take advantage of lower rates, and that energy can’t be transmitted East anyways, then it might make sense (or they could just move some industry from eastern China to western China to take advantage of renewables, or get that UHV grid working so they can move renewa…
It doesn’t matter where it is used up, the point is that it is unnecessary work taking a huge amount of energy, that could be used for better things. Even using up purely renewable energy makes every other industry rely more on non-renewables, so it is a lose-lose either way.
Energy usecases are worth what energy they use. Energy exists in a mostly free market and that's the best way to determine value. Everything else is conjecture.
A good reminder that Bitcoin runs on cheap renewables is BS. See also miners buying gas power plants in New York.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26828479
Also a good time to point out that there are energy efficient blockchains that work differently from bitcoin -- not all crypto is as power hungry (some use disk space, or memory, or even just the tokens themselves to replace bitcoin's proof of work model).
For example, with PoW you only need a single honest node to arrive at the correct chain during initial sync. With PoS there is no such guarantee, since there’s no inherent way for a new node joining the network to decide which chain to pick when presented with two different, but equally valid, chains.