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

Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

coincarboncap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 381 posts

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#261

Post by Dylan16807 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #50
wmf wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that auctions (ICOs) are fairer than mining. Devs can give themselves coins directly or they can have a dev tax (e.g. Zcash) or they can fail; I don't think it makes sense to hold crypto devs to a higher standard than, say, startups.

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…

> If a dev team starts off with 80% of supply they aren't going to ever achieve any of the above.

I'm not sure how you got from A to B. What stops an ICO from auctioning off almost all of the supply?

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#262

Post by Slartie »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #230
wpietri wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A better metric would be "energy use per double-spend that was prevented." Not for a general audience. The purpose of a currency is to enable transactions. Internally, I get why people involved might fuss about the metric. But from the societal perspective it's reasonable to ask, "What does it cost per unit of value created?"

> But from the societal perspective it's reasonable to ask, "What does it cost per unit of value created?" Then you have to define value. I don't think it's transactions. Any random bank can make transactions. People can transact with cash. Cryptocurrencies create value by providing other properties such as decentralization, trustlessness, privacy. For example, Monero enables private and untraceable transactions and…

> I don't think it's transactions.

Interesting.

> For example, Monero enables private and untraceable transactions [...]

So so...

> Cryptocurrencies create value by providing other properties such as decentralization, trustlessness, privacy.

Let's add "a largely unregulated gambling area where people with too much money can bet their excess money on being among those who pull out before the music eventually stops" to that list, shall we?

That's also where your frustration comes from: Bitcoin is perfectly fine for this kind of "value proposition", hence it stays King of the Hill.

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#263

Post by root_axis »

BluSyn wrote: post #189
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…

"Energy used / total value secured" is a better measurement. "Double-spend prevented" isn't calculable. Important to remember that the energy used on mining both secures current and *PAST* transactions, that's the entire point of the block chain . I think "total value secured" captures this point. I find it frustrating that crypto-currencies are judged by their energy usage, meanwhile traditional fiat currencies are…

> traditional fiat currencies are secured by massive banking industries, governments, and militaries

This argument makes no sense. Bitcoin doesn't obviate the need for militaries, banks, or governments, those things would exist regardless of the type of currency being used. Furthermore, these institutions have functions that go far beyond "securing fiat currency", not to mention the fact that bitcoin's existence relies on the massive infrastructure that facilitates the power grid and internet (which are secured by governments and militaries). Beyond that, bitcoin's value is inextricably linked to the utility of government issued currencies since bitcoin is not a suitable unit of exchange in a real economy due to its miniscule transaction capacity. In a world where fiat currencies collapsed the value of bitcoin would also plummet due to the fact that bitcoin's poor throughput could not sustain the the market for staple goods such as food, water, and medicine.

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#264

Post by atweiden »

shawnz wrote: post #260
atweiden wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but how is that any different than proof-of-work early adopters becoming rich and being able to afford more mining hardware and electricity? You have to spend money on mining hardware and electricity to get those yields. To do that on a large scale requires a datacenter and enormously expensive long-term power contracts with utility companies. But with PoS mining, little to no effort is required. Click a butt…

So is your argument that the profit from mining PoW currencies is actually sub-linear with the initial investment because it's more expensive per unit to get larger quantities of hardware and electricity, and so that counteracts the gain that early adopters have had? That doesn't seem right to me, economics of scale suggest it should be cheaper per unit to get larger quantities (even if there are additional difficult…

The difference with PoW mining is it involves more than just clicking a button.

Conversely, with PoS, people — and particularly insiders who are in on the ICO, pre-ICO or premine — can click a button and earn X% per annum in perpetuity. Which they do.

Bitcoin has many problems, it just doesn’t have this particular one.

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#266

Post by h4kor »

JulianMorrison wrote: post #132

Isn't this basically 1 / popularity? I'm presuming other coins have the Bitcoin feature of getting harder as more powerful miners appear.

Basically, yes. There are minor improvements to be made to keep the reward for miners as low as possible. In the end the energy consumption comes down to burning energy proportional to the block reward.

https://blog.libove.org/posts/the-cost-of-proof-of-work/

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#267

Post by shawnz »

atweiden wrote: post #257
22c wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, we were discussing mining revenue, not profits in general. If you are talking about mining revenue then you are completely wrong about what you have been saying so far, because the rate at which you receive mining rewards is usually around 5-10% pa. What you're trying to do is have your cake and eat it too. You admit that you are not talking about early adopter profits in general, but you complained above a…

In spite of what PoS investors commonly claim, stakemining $COIN isn’t “fair” merely because Joe Bob can earn the same X% per annum that $BIG_VC can earn, where $BIG_VC was able to invest at pennies on the dollar in an ICO, pre-ICO or pre-mine. PoW mining is fundamentally more fair than PoS mining because $BIG_VC has to spend money to mine at all. To mine a PoW coin, $BIG_VC needs to pay for electricity, for ASICs an…

In PoW coins you permanently lose the "stake". So that just means that to achieve the same level of security in a PoS coin, you have to stake a lot more (since you are only losing the time value of the stake).

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#268

Post by arcticbull »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #211
arcticbull wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further the purpose of mining is to enable mutations to the chain as quantized into transactions. If you stop permitting mutations energy use drops to zero, ergo energy use per transaction is totally reasonable.

That's not how logic works. That would be like saying "you need light to your math homework so we will measure how many math problems you can do per lumen of light". The throughput of transactions is not coupled to the amount of electricity used to mine. They are two elements in the system, that doesn't mean they move proportionally in any way.

A better analogy would be trying to use a 7-seater dump truck as a school bus, then complaining when the 'haters' analysis is based on "gallons of gasoline per available seat-day." As if the fact the gallons of gasoline per seat-day changes based on external factors (i.e. with the weather or traffic) makes any difference? It legitimately does not matter that (i) not all 7 seats may be populated each day or that (ii) the gas required varies day to day based on externalities. That's why we invented averages and spot measurements.

So fine, "kWh per available transaction-second" may be a more apt moniker however that's strictly what I've been talking about. Since 100% of electricity usage is attributable to mutations, this is a completely fair quantization. As blocks have been overwhelmingly full for years, the point on discrepancy is pretty much moot.

And further, the point is a dump truck is totally unsuitable for use as a school bus.

You are more than welcome to measure Wh of electricity used per math question in regards to the lighting setup. You'll find that number small and irrelevant, however. On the other hand if it requires a few thousand kWh worth of light to do a math question, you're well within your rights to ask (a) why you're doing math questions in what must be a stadium setting and (b) whether there's a more efficient lighting solution.

Which are exactly the questions we're asking here.

So, respectfully, that's exactly how logic works.

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#270

Post by 22c »

atweiden wrote: post #257
22c wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>However, we were discussing mining revenue, not profits in general. If you are talking about mining revenue then you are completely wrong about what you have been saying so far, because the rate at which you receive mining rewards is usually around 5-10% pa. What you're trying to do is have your cake and eat it too. You admit that you are not talking about early adopter profits in general, but you complained above a…

In spite of what PoS investors commonly claim, stakemining $COIN isn’t “fair” merely because Joe Bob can earn the same X% per annum that $BIG_VC can earn, where $BIG_VC was able to invest at pennies on the dollar in an ICO, pre-ICO or pre-mine. PoW mining is fundamentally more fair than PoS mining because $BIG_VC has to spend money to mine at all. To mine a PoW coin, $BIG_VC needs to pay for electricity, for ASICs an…

By that logic, diligent savers who put their money in a savings account to earn interest isn't "fair". It's fundamentally more fair to invest in expensive heavy machinery and dig precious metals out of the ground.
Post reply on HN