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

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

Post by zepto »

socialist_coder wrote: post #242
disruptalot wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're probably right. Money always finds a way.

The proposal is to stop Bitcoin/PoW being money. Other forms of money will find a way.

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

#302

Post by bwb »

quonn wrote: post #231
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?

The government can simply pass a law. There are far bigger injustices. Why do I pay taxes and Facebook doesn‘t?

FB pays insane amounts of taxes. Employment taxes, property taxes, etc. Not to mention taxes on any profits.

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

#303

Post by selfhoster11 »

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, 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.

If we won't legislate it now, it's possible we won't get a chance to do it later thanks to bickering from lobbyists and fossilised laws and practices. See IPv4.

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

#304

Post by josefresco »

ArkanExplorer wrote: post #210
josefresco wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've be lurking heavily in the crypto-mining communities for a few weeks now. Most are saying they'll just "move to a new coin" which is basically all they CAN do, unless they cash out early and sell their hardware. Nvidia is releasing* "LHR" (low hash rate) cards to give gamers some relief (assuming they can't be jailbroken). * https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/05/18/lhr/

Its difficult to calculate exactly the % of GPU miners that are mining Ethereum, amongst all possible choices. My estimate is 50% - 90%. (Maybe someone can reply with better data?) When Ethereum can no longer be mined, the returns on mining the remaining 'altcoins' will fall equal to the level of new mining power that enters. Which might very well make GPU mining uneconomical across the board.

> the returns on mining the remaining 'altcoins' will fall equal to the level of new mining power that enters.

Can you expand on this?

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

#305

Post by hannob »

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?

The arbiter is "if you build something that is build to be as inefficient as possible by design that's forbidden". I can't think of anything other than PoW that matches this.

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

#306

Post by pjc50 »

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?

Burning gasoline to drive somewhere is fine, but (at least in my city) sitting parked with your engine running incurs a fine.

Fundamentally it's become too big a waste to ignore, like so many other things. We banned incandescent bulbs, we can ban proof-of-waste, which is basically an incandescent bulb that never illuminates anything.

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

#308

Post by mckeed »

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…

The idea was to ban trading, not mining. If Coinbase and all the other legitimate companies that facilitate crypto markets for U.S. citizens had to drop PoW coins it could tank the price significantly and set the coin mining industry back to when it wasn't such a huge problem for energy use and GPU supply. Speculation would move to PoS currencies and BTC would stay valuable, but would act more like an altcoin.

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

#309

Post by mantenpanther »

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/

But maybe Bitcoin is of 1000x(+) more value for humanity in the long run?

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

#310

Post by pavon »

soheil wrote: post #153

If there was a way to verify the power source is green I think PoW would be the ideal way to move forward. For example if electrons generated by photoelectric cells somehow were different than other electrons (quantum spin, parity, etc.) then maybe an algorithm could check for that and only accept blocks mined using these electrons and not others.

Any crypto system that has an energy problem also has an economic problem. When a transaction requires the same amount of electricity as an average household uses in a month, then each transaction will cost someone a full months electric bill. That will either have to be paid with extremely high transaction fees or "absorbed" by the value of the currency in ways that make it unsuitable as an actual currency.

This is true regardless of the environmental impacts of the specific energy source, and while solar and wind are decreasing in price, it is unlikely costs will drop so much to make this issue negligible.

Post reply on HN