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

441–450 of 1001 posts

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

#441

Post by schmorptron »

chmike wrote: post #327
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…

> ban trade of PoW cryptocurrencies That might cause a financial crash of the cryptocurrency market, with the trust issues, etc. It wouldn't be wise.

would be funny to look at the internet for a few days though

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

#442

Post by tromp »

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…

> proof-of-work simply just isn't necessary to have cryptocurrency.

It seems kind of necessary to achieve wide distribution and avoid wealth concentration.

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

#443

Post by dheera »

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…

By banning them, don't you increase their value by creating scarcity?

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

#444

Post by Trias11 »

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…

Think about it from the other side.

How about continuing research and development of solutions providing cheaper, greener energy instead of sparking righteous war against something that consumes energy based on incompetent social media fart?

The loudest voices against something are typically hypocrites that happily fly on their gas guzzling private jets bitching about people driving their oh so inefficient cars to work.

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

#445

Post by rantwasp »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #174
Aqua wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We have banned a ton of things because they are bad for the environment. It has worked and will continue to work. Things like building design and construction standards are set to a minimum environmental standard, why shouldn't cryptocurrencies.

whatever happened to the efficient market?

i find views that want to ban anything for energy consumption ridiculous. also what the people advocating for this kind of thing are missing is that it’s all fun and games until something you rely gets banned because of reasons.

here are my proposals:

the entire banking system is obviously using a lot of power. how about we ban banks and go back to using paper money. that’s def more environmental friendly. /s

electric cars run on energy that’s generated with coal. that’s not cool. let’s ban electric cars and keep driving gas cars. they have been around for a long time and the technology is so good that we actually pollute less with a gas car /s

the internet in general and datacenters in particular are using a lot of power. let’s ban datacenters. guaranteed between environment afterwards /s

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

#446

Post by rantwasp »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #298
Aqua wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

yes. also let’s start capping the amount of oxygen people are allowed to breathe. I mean, without oxygen you cannot produce co2, amiright? /s

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

#447

Post by rantwasp »

dd36 wrote: post #173
Aqua wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Communities tend to ban harmful things.

“communities”.

it’s all fun and games until I ban something you rely on for your livelihood

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

#448

Post by dheera »

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?

It's easier to get Facebook to be carbon neutral because they are a centralized institution, and it only takes a committed government to zero down on a corporation and force them to move to clean energy or pay a carbon tax.

With crypto it's too decentralized to implement either.

> who's the arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use case

Ultimately Mother Nature will be the arbiter. If people spend too much time arguing about politics instead of either lowering power usage or moving to clean energy, those people will be killed sooner or later.

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

#449

Post by dbsmith83 »

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…

There's nothing wrong with pointing out problems with a solution and not providing a counter-solution. When one isn't provided, it can simply mean that the offered solution is actually worse than the status quo.

In this particular situation, I may not have the solution, but I know that the offered one is a short-sighted knee-jerk reaction which has terrible implications for other things

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

#450

Post by rantwasp »

mrfusion wrote: post #356
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…

You people terrify me.

if you’re afraid now, wait until you learn that these people vote.

democracy! f yeah!

Post reply on HN