Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

nasdaq.com

281–290 of 431 posts

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#281
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to turn electricity into money is not the problem, or if it is, then lump all of modern endeavors in capitalism alongside of Bitcoin. The problem is we (the world) are not effectively taxing carbon emissions. Right now it should be unprofitable to use coal or oil energy. If this was done right, Bitcoin would be a massive stimulus to renewables.

How is Bitcoin a boon to renewables? Bitcoin consumes energy, and that energy is not being used for other things. Taxing one form of energy will just mean everything that uses energy becomes more expensive; Bitcoin fees would rise or mining operations would simply move to places without the tax. The actual problem is that Bitcoin's incentive structure works against energy efficiency. Usually we would expect to see im…

>How is Bitcoin a boon to renewables?

It isn't, but it could be. If we had proper taxes on carbon emissions; The cheapest power would always be from renewables, bitcoin miners would invest in renewable energy which would make it cheaper in the long run as mass production scales with demand.

Energy efficiency is not important in carbon neutral energy production, and in fact can stifle development and raise prices making fossil fuels more attractive.

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#282
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Care to share your sources? Naturally, a summation of the energy expenditure of all of the related components of the existing fiat system must be included, from the totality of all people operating the various functions that facilitate the existing fiat system; i.e. their commutes, aggregate expenditures due to needing to operate physical banks, power usage at these physical banks, etc. are all factored into this cal…

I've done this before. No, I'm not going to share my sources because a) I haven't saved the exact ones I found before and b) whatever I include, you're always going to criticize me for not including yet more calculations in my side of the ledger. But the answer is going to come out the same anyways: Bitcoin uses orders of magnitude energy more than traditional currency.

Take a simple thought experiment. Someone makes a transaction with VISA. That requires updating the seller's bank's ledger, the buyer's bank's ledger, and VISA's computer. Let's round that up to a dozen computers who need to know about that transaction. Now consider Bitcoin. Those same three computers need to know about that transaction... and so does everybody else who runs a full node. We haven't considered a picojoule of energy consumed by proof-of-work yet, and Bitcoin has already consumed far more energy than VISA.

So how about that proof-of-work? Well, let's compare a bank's energy consumption. Go to their financial statements, and pick out the line item that includes energy costs. If you're not sure which line item that is, add all of the plausible ones together (and round up, because what's the harm in overestimating here?). I don't know how much they pay for energy, so let's say it's 1¢ per kWh because what's the harm in rounding up? Crunch the numbers, and banks still use far less energy than Bitcoin's proof-of-work, even by our wastrel overestimation numbers. Oops, I forgot to account for the different volumes. Doesn't matter--banks are moving more money on less energy than Bitcoin.

Much of the ancillary functions you want to include to make Bitcoin's energy consumption seem less embarrassing would still exist even if the world magically switched from USD to BTC overnight. The loan officer evaluating how much interest to offer on a mortgage to a first-time home buyer would still be doing exactly the same thing. The loan shark driving to bust someone's kneecaps for not paying back loans on time would still be doing exactly the same thing.

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have stood in the market for 10 years straight At which point, Bitcoin proponents will up the requirements again. This is an excuse people use to avoid talking about the fact that Bitcoin has spent the last 2-3 years consistently proving that it doesn't scale and that it is unusable as a currency. > had what some call an "immaculate conception" Or, it was a good first try that needs iteration now that we understand…

> Or, it was a good first try that needs iteration now that we understand that hyper-deflation is a bad thing for a currency in what sense is bitcoin "hyper-deflation"ary? i think you are thinking of the word "deflation" but i know that doesn't sound as smart >The weird, religious loyalty people have to reinterpreting Bitcoin's flaws as strengths is setting the entire crypto ecosystem back. If you want to appeal to '…

> there is nothing stopping anybody from making something better

They already did. Half the crypto ecosystem is already better than Bitcoin if you're trying to build a functional currency. We're talking about a coin that doesn't have any privacy guarantees, it's not exactly hard to improve on that.

When I talk about religious loyalty, what I'm getting at is that it turns out the Bitcoin ecosystem doesn't seem to care that much about stuff like privacy, and whenever anyone brings up Bitcoin's flaws, or the fact that it has been outclassed by other coins, suddenly the conversation is all about "stability" and the trust of having an old coin that hasn't fixed its problems in 10 years.

It turns out that having a fixed number of coins that fluctuate wildly in price is very bad for building a currency, but we have people on here arguing that it's a good thing. It turns out that PoW is unscalable and prohibitively expensive, which is a barrier to real decentralization, but we have people on here arguing that's a good thing. It's understandable that Satoshi didn't know in advance every problem, but it's not understandable that in all of the years since then, the Bitcoin community has largely failed to evolve or learn anything about the initial flaws that the coin had.

And this is honestly a tricky conversation to have because we have to keep dancing around the fact that Bitcoin is a speculative asset and that very little of the community cares about making a currency at all. But the community won't acknowledge that, so instead we get a lot of weird deflection around "stability" and we all have to pretend that the community is in good faith actually trying to create an alternative to cash, and that people genuinely believe that Bitcoin's tech is the best way to do that.

But obviously that's not what's happening. Nobody would really look at the state of Bitcoin and argue that it's best-positioned to replace traditional currency. It's worse than cash for privacy, it has higher transaction fees than almost any other payment method, it doesn't scale environmentally, and it takes 10 minutes to add a new block. But... it is for the moment an excellent speculative investment because the speculative market is irrational and doesn't care about technology. And the speculative market benefits from pretending that it exists for some kind of grand purpose rather than just as an end to itself, even if doing so makes it harder to accomplish any of the original goals behind the coin.

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#284
post #72

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

That may be true, but the toothpaste is out of the tube. If we can't abruptly stop the use of fossil fuels to stop climate change, I don't think any amount of pointing out how much energy BTC uses is going to change the fact that it's been well established.

But you can talk people into selling BTC and buying ADA or some other proof of stake coin.

I think if pension funds etc go into bitcoin it'd be an environmental disaster so it's probably worth campaigning against that. The energy consumption comes out kind of proportional to the bitcoin price.

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#285

Is bitcoin really decentralized if mining and nodes are centralized?

Bitcoin is meaningfully decentralized because miners alone do not decide the fate of Bitcoin - there are also users, businesses, and developers as major actros. The 51%++ actor cannot kill Bitcoin, only cause inconvenience. The worst that could happen is a successful DoS that would force a hard fork to another PoW algorithm.

PS1 The full nodes are actually very well decentralized.

PS2 The physical hash power is skewed towards China, which is not ideal, but it tends to decentralize to US, Canada and to lesser extent other countries. It is improving.

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#286
post #277

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).

The only energy-efficient blockchain is no blockchain at all. Storage is not free, and you can't do without it.

Central banking requires a lot of storage too so I'm not sure storage is a good argument against most blockchains (the proof of storage ones aside).

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#287
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heat generation really is the stupidest way of doing things. With things like storage, at least you can reuse it after the fact. Tho, all these systems require some ressource scarcity and will inherently maintain/promote scarcity. This is completely unacceptable in the coming years. People don't realize how much we need to cut back on natural ressource extraction and energy expenditure. Out whole world is build on ma…

I agree on everything you said, but I have the suspect that if we untapped an unlimited energy source that would quickly put a (near) expiration date on our civilization, and maybe on our planet. Scarcity is necessary to maintain balance.

It's unobtanium anyway. Not even fusion energy will give us that. Most technological salvation promises, ignore the reality of our massive overexploitation and fossil carbon dependency. We don't have the building material and energy left to bootstrap abundance.

However, the theoretical thought of a near infinite energy source inevitably pushing a PoRessource currencies system into finding (another) limitation again is outrageous. With all those free market edgelords in the cryptosphere, why don't they see the catastrophic flaw of dependency on scarcity? That's just insane. No matter the material/energetic efficiency technology will ever achieve, PoR will automatically counterbalance it.

It's full commitment into the long known failings of a free market economy. Giving up all control to the reward delay capacity of a toddler. A modern take on the easter island collapse on a holistic, global scale.

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#288

One of the reasons I'm bearish on Bitcoin in the long term is there are systemic risks like this around miners.

Systemic risks in Bitcoin do exist but primarily around fungibility and privacy.

Risks strictly related to PoW, hashrate volatiliy, or "51% attacks" are not existential by any means. We do know how to mitigate them and multiple examples exist how altcoins managed to survive such attacks.

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But it’s important to point out that proof-of-work (PoW) is more decentralized than e.g. proof-of-stake (PoS). The opposite is true in multiple aspects. PoW has infinite economies of scale which inevitably leads to total centralization as all miners but the most efficient one have to shutdown. PoS can stay decentralized forever because new stakers arriving aren't going to make existing staking unprofitable, forcing…

I've been mining for about 4 years now (1btc/month and 35-40eth/month since March 2017), and this is the first time I've heard someone trying to say PoS would lead to MORE decentralization. To be fair, I don't regularly converse online with other miners. I mean, I see what your arguments are here, but I'm just not sure I agree. Usually the only people trying to promote PoS are the ones who are financially well-off en…

> this is the first time I've heard someone trying to say PoS would lead to MORE decentralization.

As time goes by, the number of people holding a token goes up, and competition among the staking services goes up, which results in more decentralization.

Take for instance on Tezos, with better internet we can eventually get RPi connected to Starlink which can be installed by the users themselves and start staking.

As hardware technology progresses, PoW goes in the opposite direction. Initially anyone can mine, but later only the most specialized optimized hardware will mine irrespective of the number of people holding the token.

Re: Bitcoin mining hash rate drops as blackouts instituted in China

#290
post #225

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?

Not only are fiat currencies cheaper, they are also useful... Bitcoin is no longer a practical currency, so comparisons to fiat currencies are pointless.

Bitcoin is very practical for me. I use it primarily to protect my savings, but also to send anonymous donations to causes I support.
Post reply on HN