Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge • Hacker News Board

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

#401

Post by panarky » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

helmholtz wrote: post #313

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?

Why do HN comment threads always end up as Pedantry Pageants where all ye who dare comment must address all the fucking edge cases or be called out by the immediate first child comment about failing to do so. It's SO trite, predictable, wearisome and boring . It always follows the same pattern too. "Where do you draw the line?" "Who decides what's the truth?" Always the same fucking slippery slope fallacy. Every fuck…

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Perhaps it's not idle pedantry to observe that many of those who are angry about crypto energy usage couldn't care less about the energy wasted and pollution generated by other endeavors.

It's like an uncle of mine who is outraged that mosques get tax exemptions, but he doesn't care that churches get tax exemptions.

Clearly tax policy isn't a genuine concern for him. He's angry about something else that he won't say out loud.

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

#402

Post by suikadayo » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:25 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #14

> Ethereum’s power-hungry days are numbered, and I hope that’s true for the rest of the industry too. Ethereum has been talking about PoS for a long time, so until they actually deliver we should be looking at existing decentralized PoS coins.

It already exists https://beaconcha.in/

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

#403

Post by ryanmarsh » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

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…

Banning a certain kind of computation is a novel idea. Was this a knee jerk reaction or have you considered all the other types of computation that should not be allowed and why? Do we have an empirical understanding of the negative impacts of these specific kinds of computation, their general threat to humanity, and the negative side effects of regulation?

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

#404

Post by anm89 » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:26 PM UTC

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…

How do you ban open source software that millions of people already have? It's like banning algebra or something. You can tell people they can't do it but you can only truly ban it to the extent that you can micro monitor and enforce the actions of every person interested in it.

To me this illustrates a lack of understanding of the space.

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

#405

Post by itsdsmurrell » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:27 PM UTC

f6v wrote: post #171

bufferoverflow wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there are coins like Bitcoin Cash that have ridiculously low fees and are accepted in tons of physical stores across the world. BTC refuses to scale, Lightning is permanently broken. Ethereum will reduce the fees with sharing, but that will take time.

> in tons of physical stores across the world. Compared to other crypto, or on the scale of Visa and MasterCard?

Is this really your question?

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

#406

Post by ClumsyPilot » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:27 PM UTC

helmholtz wrote: post #313

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?

Why do HN comment threads always end up as Pedantry Pageants where all ye who dare comment must address all the fucking edge cases or be called out by the immediate first child comment about failing to do so. It's SO trite, predictable, wearisome and boring . It always follows the same pattern too. "Where do you draw the line?" "Who decides what's the truth?" Always the same fucking slippery slope fallacy. Every fuck…

While I agree with the genral thrust of your tirade, this is not slippery slope, this is hypocracy of the highest degree.

OP proposal to ban cryptocurrencies for 'damaging environment' while we have companies who's entire business model is giving their customers cancer and preying on addicts.

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

#407

Post by GhostVII » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:27 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #339

GhostVII wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about we just make people pay for their negative externalities, and let them do whatever they want. Tonnes of things people do are wasteful, no one needs a sports car either, but for some people it is worth paying extra for it. Why should it matter what I'm using my electricity for as long as I pay for the negative effects. If you want to encourage other uses of electricity, subsidize them, don't just ban arbitra…

> How about we just make people pay for their negative externalities, and let them do whatever they want. Well, for one, because that tends to mean "rich folks and large companies can act with impunity, everyone else not so much". For two, we actually do discriminate quite happily between different uses of things. Maybe it's OK to keep energy prices low for households, as a compromise, but not for crypto mining?

Whats the problem with rich fold acting with impunity, so long as they pay for what they use? If someone burns enough electricity to power 1000 homes, but they pay for the environmental impact, and are charged enough for the electricity to fund building more generation capacity, that's a net win. Giving each household some amount of free or subsidized power makes sense. If they want to burn that power crypto mining that's their decision.

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

#408

Post by lancemurdock » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:28 PM UTC

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…

While the energy consumption of bitcoin is debatable due to the unknown usage of clean, renewable energy (some reports are at 75%) to to secure the network and prevent bad actors, even for arguments sake, we can agree the energy consumption is extremely large. We also do not know how much energy is required to maintain SWIFT, or the global ACH network and other banking services.

However, some of the biggest plagues to society are rooted in central banking policies that over time devalue a nations currency through excessive money printing backed by nothing, or gambling via derivatives that when a bubble pops requires bailouts. Even worse, where we are now is done via quantitative easing which is a fancy word for more money printing to buy government debts to keep the economy afloat. If Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies can provide all the same services banks offer (borrowing/lending/saving) and be backed by a finite number ensuring value over time then we, as a society will be less manipulated by politics and therefore experience deflation which will could close wealth gaps.

Bitcoin may have an energy problem but the problems it aims to solve are extremely important as well. “Necessity is the mother of invention.” If Bitcoin can really solve some areas maybe the conversation should be about how can get 100% of BTC energy consumption to be renewable.

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

#409

Post by fredfoobar » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

fredfoobar wrote: post #397

stingraycharles wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like you’re insinuating that there are negative consequences to the PoS system, but leave it up to the reader to think really deep and understand what those consequences are. I’m not well versed into PoS systems, but just took a look at ethereum’s explanation and it sounded reasonable, but I’m not familiar with the details and trade-offs that are being made. Care to enlighten me what you’re referring to?

The negative consequences were mentioned in another comment: You should first get "well versed into PoS systems", The stakers (and their adjoints) can collude and decide to reorg the chain for a different outcome. This can be done indefinitely at no additional cost. In a PoW system, you not only have to expend capex for mining equipment, you hare further discouraged by the huge CONTINUED opex (energy) cost. The energ…

Not to mention the cavalier attitude towards their tokenomics (quite literally monetary policy now), how often they can change it. It simply doesn't inspire confidence. A monetary layer should be immutable once a good set of rules have been found to be working well.

Just think about it, if a protocol layer on the internet changes its protocol parameters based on some trends, is it a good idea? Bitcoin is like another protocol layer on the internet protocol stack, you build other layers on top of the base monetary layer. You reduce the possibility of bugs in a layer disrupting the whole ecosystem and make the layer more maintainable.

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

#410

Post by useful » Tue, May 18, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

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'd much rather put kwh limits on proof of work. That would stop large farms that aren't green.

Outside of ethereum, proof of stake is no different than a database. The ownership is so centralized that you only have 3-5 people/organizations approving everything.

The whole point of crypto was to be decentralized, proof of stake is not that. Cardano, solana, they all are pointless as a token because the whole supply is largely owned by a few people.