Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or search “Bitcoin SV”, what does celebrity gossip have to do with this
Craig Wright claims to be Satoshi and is the creator of Bitcoin SV.
(And is basically a con artist)
Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
191–200 of 381 posts
Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, an ICO + POS is not fair at all. It might make sense for a crypto startup but not for a layer 1 blockchain currency. The base layer has to be plausibly neutral, or it defeats the purpose and you might as well open a Robinhood account. Censorship resistance, plausible neutrality, decentralization, antifragility, uptime, and security are features of layer 1 blockchain systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum. If a dev tea…
> Censorship resistance, plausible neutrality, decentralization, antifragility, uptime, and security are features of layer 1 blockchain systems like Bitcoin and Ethereum. I completely agree, all the the above must come before throughput in an L1 blockchain. So many of the so called ETH killers sacrifice on some or all of the items you listed. Do you think anything else ticks all the boxes and can stand alongside BTC…
They're both unique because they're both the first of their kind. And they were doubted for years before they were shown to have value and staying power. The copycats have a problem especially when they hype themselves to $40B market caps before they have even grown a sustainable ecosystem or fair distribution.
The file storage chains like Filecoin, Sia, Chia, etc. may tick this box, but they aren't competing with Bitcoin or Ethereum. Any other unique proof of work algos that can't be easily hashed by ASICs or GPUs might qualify but I don't know. I don't see any others with a real grassroots ecosystem of activity.
Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it be harder to evaluate in PoS-based cryptocurrencies?
PoS still encourages using more powerful hardware and faster internet because it equates to more transactions. That said, I've seen people use Pi's as stakers. But you can still test the current draw per transaction much the same as with PoW currencies.
More power doesn’t equate to more throughput in PoS schemes, unless everyone is increasing their power and communication isn’t your bottleneck, but even then there’s a quick ceiling you’ll reach.
Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
#194Would eth2.0 have a significantly higher txs/mwh? I have read 99% reduction in some places. Seems well positioned to top this list.
They’re moving to proof of stake so yes, soon
Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you are using 100% green energy, that energy can be used for something productive not providing PoW You can say the same thing about ANY activity that isn't an arbitrarily defined form of altruism. Sports? Concerts? Video games? All vast wastes of time, money, and energy that could be spent fighting poverty or feeding the poor. This betrays the intention of criticizing bitcoin's energy usage because it moves the…
But almost any other activity only benefits from getting more efficient. Compare today's efficient LED lighting technology with what was available a few decades ago. With proof-of-work on the other hand, efficiency is actively counteracted . If a proof-of-work cryptocurrency holds its price, its energy usage can only go up. You are also assuming that only renewable energy will be used for mining in the first place. I…
> If a proof-of-work cryptocurrency holds its price, its energy usage can only go up.
The cost of proof-of-work is paid by the network participants. When you transact on Bitcoin or Ethereum, you pay massive fees to proof of work miners that significantly limits the number of things you can do productively. Dozens of interesting use cases on Ethereum are made completely non-viable by fees that sometimes break $100 per transaction.
Proof of work cryptocurrencies however exist in a competitive environment with other cryptocurrencies. If a new cryptocurrency launches that can provide the same utility and security guarantees at a lower cost (either through less work, or through some other means) you will have a natural migration of users from the more expensive cryptocurrency to the cheaper cryptocurrency.
At equilibrium (which we may not be at, given all the hype currently), a proof of work cryptocurrency is only sustainable if its cost structure is competitive. There is an active incentive applied to the entire space to invent more efficient means to transact in a decentralized way, so that participants don't have to pay such high transaction fees and inflation costs to update a decentralized ledger.
> Cryptocurrencies are decentralized by design, so while the US for example can stop the use or import of inefficient stadium lighting technologies, there is no way to apply a carbon tax or stop the "import" of cryptocurrency mined through "dirty" means.
This approximately applies to all manufacturing though. What percentage of US goods are manufactured in regions that have limited regulation regarding the environment? Most of them, because if you don't use those regions, you are going to have trouble competing in the marketplace. It IS a problem for Bitcoin, but it's also a problem for all global production in general.
Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
#196Note that Bitcoin SV is completely controlled by miners, a 51% attack can change the rules. In the original Bitcoin, a 51% attack can only reverse recent transactions, not change the rules or compromise stored funds.
Yea if you want to spend millions if not billions to 51% attack it and the public nature of bitcoin is such that everyone would know who attacked it leaving them legally liable then be my guest. There is more incentive not to attack it than there is to attack it. when will people realize this.
What sort of legal liability though? What law, regulation or contract would they be violating?
Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
#197Bitcoin cash and SV are low on the carbon emission cause they forked from BTC right? So they re-used bitcoins early work. Or am I totally wrong here?
Less users and smaller price => fewer miners
Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a sign that market caps are irrelevant, the whole crypto scene is crazy, or both.
Market caps get extra weird for cryptocurrencies which are created as forks of an existing chain, because everyone who held the original coin at the time of the fork technically holds an equal number of the forked coins, even if the owners of those coins have never interacted with the fork.
Not to mention exchanges that didn't participate in the fork
Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
#199PoW in conjunction with blockchain is anti-efficiency by design. It’s a principle of the ledger’s security and an inevitability that mature networks waste energy in exchange for that.
Anyone serious about this topic needs to think beyond blockchain into fundamentally different technologies, like Nano, or things which forego decentralization entirely.
Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency
#200As 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…
Energy used per real world non-speculative use?
I imagine Bitcoin would fair terribly and Monero would be the best.