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

Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

blog.ethereum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#291

Post by VMG »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #278
bko wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government wants to put a higher price on energy or carbon, it should do so. But it should not be the arbiter of what's a worthy use of energy expenditure. I could see a lot of people make the argument the production of a lot of energy intensive goods is not worth-while.

>it should not be the arbiter of what's a worthy use of energy expenditure. I disagree. If we must cap the CO2 we can emit, we should definitely favor basic needs over luxury. Here in France, the government tried to set a carbon tax on gas (which is required for many simply to commute to work, with no affordable alternatives yet) but they refused to impose a tax on jet fuel which is known to be used by the ultra rich…

my financial privacy is a basic need, and I need cryptocurrency to achieve it

I do not believe consensus mechanism other than PoW can provide enough security for a cryptocurrency

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#292

Post by baby »

selfhoster11 wrote: post #201
DCKing wrote: post #133

Good. Very good. This may be a radical take, but I think nations should introduce some unprecedented legislation: ban trade of proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Don't ban their trade because they make poor financial products, either because of rampant fraud or criminal activity. That's a different argument and requires different approaches. Ban their trade because global society shouldn't accept rampant incentives to l…

So burning electricity on running a cryptocurrency is not right, but burning electricity on running servers for Facebook or user tracking is all right? If that's the case, who's the arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use case? If that's not the case, how do you propose to enforce that all use cases use less electricity, and how do you punish those who use too much?

Yes. The latter has value whereas the former is just dumb as green cryptocurrencies exist.

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#293

Post by cm2187 »

graeme wrote: post #249
selfhoster11 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So burning electricity on running a cryptocurrency is not right, but burning electricity on running servers for Facebook or user tracking is all right? If that's the case, who's the arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use case? If that's not the case, how do you propose to enforce that all use cases use less electricity, and how do you punish those who use too much?

If Statistia is to be believed, Facebook consumes 22x less energy than Bitcoin. 5 vs 110 Terawatt hours. And Bitcoin is hardly used for any transactions, and its energy usage will increase linearly with BTC price. (If someone has a direct source that would be great. Statista is not good) Update: seems the FB figure is correct, for 2019: https://sustainability.fb.com/report-pages/renewable-energy/

Why does the energy moves with the price? Is it because of increased number of transactions?

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#294

Post by chii »

gpm wrote: post #251
selfhoster11 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So burning electricity on running a cryptocurrency is not right, but burning electricity on running servers for Facebook or user tracking is all right? If that's the case, who's the arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use case? If that's not the case, how do you propose to enforce that all use cases use less electricity, and how do you punish those who use too much?

I think the proposal here is very simple. Pass a law against proof of work crypto currencies, don't let perfect be the enemy of good, and deal with the next big waste of power when it comes about by passing a law about it. Don't address of any the things that you are proposing need addressing, because they don't need to be addressed in the same law, or really addressed right now at all. The law doesn't need to try an…

> Pass a law against proof of work crypto currencies

once again, you have merely just assumed the role of arbitor. What makes this opinion better than the opposition?

What needs to be addressed isn't energy usage, but the cost of energy in the first place. Why isn't the fix be passing a law to tax carbon properly? Tax the externalities, and the rest would follow. I don't care if people burn up energy for crypto, as long as they pay for the cost properly.

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#295

Post by zepto »

disruptalot wrote: post #212
DCKing wrote: post #133

Good. Very good. This may be a radical take, but I think nations should introduce some unprecedented legislation: ban trade of proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Don't ban their trade because they make poor financial products, either because of rampant fraud or criminal activity. That's a different argument and requires different approaches. Ban their trade because global society shouldn't accept rampant incentives to l…

This is one of those "Freakonomics" type ideas. On the surface this sounds like bitcoin's PoW use will simply stop. It's actually the entire opposite. When governments ban it, they go after sizeable, identifiable organizations running these operations, that is their only choice. These operations are optimized in their energy usage, because it's only in their interest to reduce their consumption relative to the value…

> On the surface this sounds like bitcoin's PoW use will simply stop. It's actually the entire opposite.

Not really. It wouldn’t stop, but it would decline substantially.

Smaller operations and hobbyists only participate because it’s worth money to do so.

Making Bitcoin illegal would kill the argument that it will eventually displace fiat, and relegate it to being used only for illegal purposes.

The incentive to mine a currency that can only be used for crime as a hobbyist would end up being low.

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#296

Post by artifact_44 »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #184
DCKing wrote: post #133

Good. Very good. This may be a radical take, but I think nations should introduce some unprecedented legislation: ban trade of proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Don't ban their trade because they make poor financial products, either because of rampant fraud or criminal activity. That's a different argument and requires different approaches. Ban their trade because global society shouldn't accept rampant incentives to l…

Forget just the environmental issues. The price of commodity hardware for AI research is astronomical right now (try getting into deep learning right now, I dare you!). Crypto is directly trading off with AI research and game development.

Gary Larson: School for the gifted.

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#297

Post by micropresident »

pamplemoose wrote: post #229
fvdessen wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PoS is not just a more environmentally version of PoW. It is a lot more vulnerable to state level actors. If the state takes over / subverts / influences the limited number of stakeholders, then it is game over. With PoW the state can influence the existing miners, but cannot prevent new independent miners to pop up and counter act.

or you can fork and remove the bad actors, burning all their coins. good luck with their next attack. in contrast, you can't burn an attackers fleet of miners

What do you think a PoW change does when the PoW is being done by ASICs?

Slashing stake is significantly more arbitrary. You basically need to reset the coin's ledger in order for it to make any sense.

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#298

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

Aqua wrote: post #159
DCKing wrote: post #133

Good. Very good. This may be a radical take, but I think nations should introduce some unprecedented legislation: ban trade of proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Don't ban their trade because they make poor financial products, either because of rampant fraud or criminal activity. That's a different argument and requires different approaches. Ban their trade because global society shouldn't accept rampant incentives to l…

I cringe every time I see such comments. Ban bitcoin or ban beef because it uses too much energy. Humanity will continue to require energy as it advances and banning anything "because it uses too much energy" is a ridiculous advice. How about we ban gold mining, or set quotas on the number of children people may have, that will surely contribute to our CO2 reduction goals. It's also Orwellian and reminiscent of how t…

>How about we ban gold mining

Why not?

>or set quotas on the number of children people may have

Some people consume 10x less energy than others, so blindly capping the number of children does not seem a good idea. What about capping the carbon footprint per person instead?

We track and tax revenues (not perfectly but as well as we can). We could definitely track and cap carbon emissions. Sounds good to me!

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#299

Post by nmfisher »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #250
LeftTriangle wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You people obsessed with reducing humanity’s energy usage are so tiresome. Anyone who actually cares about the well-being of humanity should be focused on increasing the amount of energy available. I want to climb the kardashev scale, not live in an eco-pod and eat bug burgers so I can scrounge every last joule.

What you want and the realities of our current world are two very, very different things.

The reality of the current world is that a lot of people feel exactly like that, so you're unlikely to convince them to change their behaviour.

Rather than deny that reality, you're better off working with it to produce more, but cleaner, energy.

Re: Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge

#300

Post by foerbert »

disruptalot wrote: post #212
DCKing wrote: post #133

Good. Very good. This may be a radical take, but I think nations should introduce some unprecedented legislation: ban trade of proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Don't ban their trade because they make poor financial products, either because of rampant fraud or criminal activity. That's a different argument and requires different approaches. Ban their trade because global society shouldn't accept rampant incentives to l…

This is one of those "Freakonomics" type ideas. On the surface this sounds like bitcoin's PoW use will simply stop. It's actually the entire opposite. When governments ban it, they go after sizeable, identifiable organizations running these operations, that is their only choice. These operations are optimized in their energy usage, because it's only in their interest to reduce their consumption relative to the value…

That's assuming PoW cryptos would remain attractive to smaller operations and hobbyists. I'm not sure that's a given. If no business can change your coins to fiat, and no business could accept your coins in the first place (not that they really do now, but whatever), your options for getting anything out of your coins is... what? Posting on craigslist to find people to meet up for illicit localcoin transactions?

And if you can't really do anything with your coins but have your coins, why would people rush out to break the law to mine them?

Post reply on HN