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

851–860 of 1001 posts

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

#851

Post by not2b »

andrewla wrote: post #664
reedjosh wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The equivalent in the real world is a bunch of aircraft carriers and planes and bombs and people with big guns, which gives the ability to say (credibly) that it is a crime to forge dollars no matter who you are or where you live. Largely funded by forging dollars.

If you are a miner and you get a block reward for mining a block in Ethereum, you are not forging currency; this is the structurally correct way for Ethereum to be created. Similarly only the Fed has the ability to make new dollars; although technically the US Treasury has this ability in a narrow sense. There's a lot of mummery around how the Fed goes about doing it, but that is the structurally correct way for doll…

No, banks make new dollars, every time they make a loan. The amount of dollars on the books vastly exceeds the amount of currency printed, and is dominated by bank deposits. The Fed controls the money supply by regulating banks.

"Certain forms of IOUs" would include money in checking accounts, which is much more money than the total of all bills in circulation, and this is part of M1.

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

#852

Post by tylercubell »

miohtama wrote: post #809
tylercubell wrote: post #525

Algorand has been Proof of Stake for years (2019 MainNet launch) and it's actually carbon-negative [1]. It's a shame more people don't know about it. Its founder is a Turing-award-winning MIT professor (Silvio Micali) who solved the blockchain trilemma [2] with the Pure Proof of Stake consensus algorithm. The tech is leaps and bounds ahead of other cryptos. [1]: https://www.algorand.com/resources/news/carbon_negative…

The first proof-of-stake coin was PeerCoin from 2012. Also Algorand is not leaps ahead of the competiton. More in my presentation: https://capitalgram.com/posts/history-of-cryptocurrencies/

Would it be reasonable to assert pure proof of stake is less risky than delegated proof of stake? I don't claim to be an expert in crypto but from what I've read it seems like pure proof of stake is a leap ahead of other consensus algorithms in terms of security, energy usage, etc.

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

#853

Post by boc »

_9omd wrote: post #785
intotheabyss wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe this blatant denialism still exists on HN despite the fact that Ethereum has a thriving defi ecosystem. I can get a loan peer to peer today with my ETH in a stablecoin and yet you say there's no there there? Right....

HN crowd are like the flat earthers of the cryptosphere. When people's self esteem relies on them being contrarian don't expect them to actually put in the effort to learn about something.

I understand crypto perfectly and I strongly believe that it's ultimately useless. The difference is that I have no financial incentive to tell everyone I know about crypto, whereas you certainly do.

I'll leave it up to the audience to decide which one of us is biased.

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

#854

Post by rcxdude »

Taek wrote: post #662
lawn wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> almost every large miner and bitcoin company wanted to change the protocol If the miners really wanted to change the protocol, they would have done that. The exchanges would have followed, as they had declared that the longest chain would win, and that would be game over. Instead the miners gave in to the perceived authority of the Core developers, who pinky promised to later raise the block size (which they backed…

The exchanges have no reason not to support both sides of a fork, for example the BTC/BCH split. Then the owners of the tokens ultimately decide which one is more valuable by selling their tokens on the chain they don't prefer and buying tokens on the chain they do prefer.

This. There's a bunch of waffling above about how the miners vs stakers will control stuff and so on, but in reality it's the markets which define which gets used. That's what decided the block size debate, not users spinning up nodes or miners pushing in one direction in ther other. Miners follow the market, and so will those running validators on proof of stake. Those who can influence the market have the most power here (and usually that's vocal members of the community or developers).

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

#855

Post by colordrops »

nikanj wrote: post #798
intotheabyss wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe this blatant denialism still exists on HN despite the fact that Ethereum has a thriving defi ecosystem. I can get a loan peer to peer today with my ETH in a stablecoin and yet you say there's no there there? Right....

Cryptos also have a thriving theft ecosystem, and illegal uses dwarf the few defi experiments.

That doesn't cause the positive use cases to not exist.

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

#856

Post by rawtxapp »

eyezick wrote: post #727
vbuterin wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're conflating _consensus_ and _governance_; the two are quite different. It's not PoW vs PoS that allows a chain to resist a coordinated attempt by elites to force a protocol change, it's users personally verifying the chain (and so automatically rejecting chains that violate the rules even if >51% of PoW/PoS nodes support those chains). So no, PoS is not "how our current financial system works". Our curr…

I'd further add on to say PoS has the benefit of being able to eliminate bad actors unilaterally. You can't stop anyone from attacking a PoW chain over and over again. Attacking a PoS chain is much riskier as the attacker's stakes are held on chain and are at the mercy of the community who uses the network.

If the community forks to void an attacker's coins, that creates a very bad precedent. It already happened with the dao hack (which was pretty bad to begin with), but if it keeps happening, why would you trust that blockchain.

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

#857

Post by 3np »

Ma8ee wrote: post #800
DickingAround wrote: post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? We totally got what we wanted; we have a deflationary currency we trade for goods and services. I'm 100% serious here; it's been working fine for quite a number of years. The fiat conversion is pretty noisy but BTC on average goes up in value in fiat terms at a fast pace. BTC is easy to turn it into stuff. No one has ever censored my transactions or asked for ID. Even if you buy something really exp…

And why would you want a deflationary currency? If you see it as an investment, then of course. But for the general economy it is better when people spend their money sooner rather than later, and capital gets invested where it does something useful.

Well, now that it exists, what would you as an individual rather keep your cash in compared to inflationary fiat held in an account with negative interest rate?

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

#858

Post by 3np »

nikanj wrote: post #798
intotheabyss wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't believe this blatant denialism still exists on HN despite the fact that Ethereum has a thriving defi ecosystem. I can get a loan peer to peer today with my ETH in a stablecoin and yet you say there's no there there? Right....

Cryptos also have a thriving theft ecosystem, and illegal uses dwarf the few defi experiments.

Source for the last point? I’m quite certain this is not the case anymore.

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

#859

Post by kaba0 »

DickingAround wrote: post #726
simias wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like cryptocurrencies achieved any of their goals so far anyway. If it's about facilitating pyramid schemes and creating a worldwide casino we might as well do it efficiently and without wasting insane amounts of resources. I'm personally very happy for PoS and hope that it'll be successful, I would be a lot less annoyed with cryptocurrency bullshit if it wasn't so wasteful. With proof-of-stakes it basically…

What do you mean? We totally got what we wanted; we have a deflationary currency we trade for goods and services. I'm 100% serious here; it's been working fine for quite a number of years. The fiat conversion is pretty noisy but BTC on average goes up in value in fiat terms at a fast pace. BTC is easy to turn it into stuff. No one has ever censored my transactions or asked for ID. Even if you buy something really exp…

Why is illegal transactions a goal? You can hate on governments all you want, but that is the only way currently known where we can have a reasonable say into the laws made and uphold — and order is not a bad thing in my opinion. Why circumvent that, instead of voting someone in who will create reasonable laws to protect us all?

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

#860

Post by BLKNSLVR »

jereees wrote: post #718
matheusmoreira wrote: post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monero is closest to the original cryptocurrency dream: decentralized and private currency. It's most definitely not "bullshit".

How is that different from how Shiba Inu token works? Genuinely curious

Monero also has active, on-going development. Shiba Inu, Dogecoin, and all the other meme coins that have sprung up as a result of the smell of free money in the air were created in the space of a couple of hours using Ctrl-C Ctrl-V of existing open source code, then released to the world with no care to actual function or any further effort other than pulling the rug when enough suckers have bought in.
Post reply on HN