Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

Post by viraptor » Sun, May 16, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

GBiT wrote: post #44

meowkit wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Basically it will make rich richer and more centralized. So PoW doesn't have this problem? It costs money to run mining hardware and supply electricity. The more valuable a PoW coin is, the greater incentive there is to run more hardware. With Bitcoin specifically the block rate is limited via the difficult adjustment. With this in mind it sounds like whoever is mining will get richer faster and centralize the compe…

You right, but I will write how I think. Incentive in not only to run more hardware, but to run more effective hardware. This incentivises innovation. In POS you don't need to do anything else. Just stake coins. No innovation, you can always be a monopoly if you have the cash to make a one-time investment. In POW you always have to invest to be competitive and have the most competing hardware.

Post by viraptor » Sun, May 16, 2021, 9:50 PM UTC

dvh wrote: post #33

danielvf wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ETH2 (proof-of-stake) already has 16 billion dollars of ETH locked into it, and has been running for months. The proof-of-stake switchover seems to be on a good track and should work form technical standpoint.

Python 3 is better than python 2 and people will soon switch.

Post by zdragnar » Sun, May 16, 2021, 10:02 PM UTC

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #37

zdragnar wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be. If the hydro generator isn't supplying enough energy to the local area because of BTC, then presumably a higher load falls on petro energy to fill in the gap in supply. That influences the global market a tiny amount. Your power bill likewise is affected, presuming your provider has any petro in its supply mix, which it likely does (even if only as a backup). The impact is tiny to nonexistent at a scale of…

Or more succinctly: Electricity tends to be fungible and move over geographically large networks, so most of it is probably interchangeable even over large areas/distance.

Post by wmf » Sun, May 16, 2021, 10:24 PM UTC

paulgb wrote: post #60

toomim wrote: post #36

As a Bitcoin miner ( https://toom.im ), while I appreciate the work put into it, this particular metric of "transactions per kW" might not work the way you expect. The main point that you should understand is that a PoW blockchain's energy usage is not proportional to its transactions. I'll say that a different way: the transactions themselves do not use any energy in mining. I'll say this in a third way: it takes ex…

I’ve gone back and forth on this myself, but I think it is valid to consider the cost of the entire network as a matter of carbon accounting. After all, one of Bitcoin’s selling points is the difficulty of a double-spend. This wouldn’t be the case if Bitcoin mining was not subsidized from the pool of unmined coins.

Post by Judgmentality » Sun, May 16, 2021, 10:27 PM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #63

dvh wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Python 3 is better than python 2 and people will soon switch.

People have largely switched already. Py2 is gone from default installs these days. So yes, even if it takes a while, people often do switch to better solutions.