Live data from Hacker News

Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

spectrum.ieee.org

121–130 of 301 posts

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#121

https://endthefud.org/ There's a Proof of Stake section describing all of its shortcomings compared to Proof of Work. Plus a lot of bitcoin fud debunking.

This seems to be a selection of links for bitcoin maximalists. Not an unbiased discussion about pros and cons for different blockchains.

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#122
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With PoW, you do nothing except maintain your mining hardware and burn electricity. With PoS, you do nothing except maintain your staking hardware and burn the time value of the money you are staking. From that perspective there is no difference. The difference is that with PoW, the richest participants can afford the most efficient hardware, giving them a super-linear advantage. In PoS, it's still true that the "ric…

Mining coins is a risky business, you can very easily lose money there. Proof of stake isn't, you have codified it into the inner workings of the coin that the rich gets richer. Not through interest or banking or investment returns, its just the fundamental law that the rich get richer. That is a significant difference. It is like, imagine if USA had written in the constitution that the rich should get richer? Would…

You can lose money staking too, in exactly the same way. The staking reward needs to be greater than the return of whatever else you could have invested your money in instead. If the staking reward ends up being lower, then you are effectively losing money. Just like how when mining in a PoW coin, you are effectively losing money if the coin reward becomes less than the electricity cost. It's no different from that perspective.

It is a "fundamental law" in both PoW and PoS that you get rewarded for doing the work/staking. I don't really understand your point about the US constitution -- what I am saying is that PoS systems minimize the effect of the "rich getting richer" as much as possible by forcing it to be at most a linear effect. Whereas there is no need to include such language in the US constitution at all.

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#123
post #80
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I mean the market for hard drives is already over 1 zettabyte a year so it seems a little ridiculous to make that comparison without taking into context the whole picture. Although yes, you're right, some resource needs to be consumed for any blockchain or database to work — in this case it's storage space (not necessarily hard drives). To my mind, Chia puts existing underutilized space to work so it's not reall…

Some resource needs to be consumed, but we have payment systems that are currently multiple orders of magnitude more efficient than Bitcoin or Chia, so that is kind of a baseline. (Think Visa or Mastercard) Secondly, Chia is a small coin, it did not make a dent in the global market yet. I can believe that so far nobody really bothered to invest in storage. However, imagine Chia would be as large as say Bitcoin, then…

> we have payment systems that are currently multiple orders of magnitude more efficient than Bitcoin or Chia, so that is kind of a baseline. (Think Visa or Mastercard)

Credit cards offer none of the desirable properties found in many cyptocurrencies such as decentralization, privacy, security, full custody of funds... It makes little sense to compare the two, especially in terms of "efficiency".

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#124

Proof of Stake is superior to Proof of Work because with PoW, it's possible for someone to take over the network and tamper with the data if they control more than 50% of the mining power. The cost of buying new mining hardware grows linearly as you buy more of it. On the other hand, with PoS, an attacker would need to control more than 50% of tokens, the cost of acquiring tokens grows exponentially as you approach t…

> Proof of Stake is superior to Proof of Work because with PoW, it's possible for someone to take over the network and tamper with the data if they control more than 50% of the mining power. The cost of buying new mining hardware grows linearly as you buy more of it. On the other hand, with PoS, an attacker would need to control more than 50% of tokens, the cost of acquiring tokens grows exponentially as you approach…

This actually helps with decentralization since there are usually multiple exchanges and it's very rare for 1 exchange to hold more than 10% of all tokens.

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#125
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they are far from the same. It's true that BTC mining is capital intensive, yet it is highly competitive and risky, and most miners get a decent profit, yet need to sell the vast majority of mined coins to run their operation. Miners can never move on some parabolic increase of wealth as the very protocol itself prevents this. Rather, we should look at holders. Bitcoin is fair in the sense that it does not have r…

> If I'm rich and own 1,000 BTC whilst some poor slum has 0.001 BTC, neither of us has an advantage within the protocol. Why would we care about "advantage within the protocol" while ignoring the whole world around it? A similar absurd description is: one person is holding $1B in their hands, another is holding $1 - neither has more say about the money nor any advantage within the system as long as they don't spend i…

Because the protocol is software and only dictates rules inside its sphere of influence. It's a good rule that owning lots of coins does not automatically give you even more coins.

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#126
One thing that PoW has for it is this idea of "something outside the system". In essence the miners are somewhat economically forced to sell their mined coins in order to rent the energy/mining-rigs. Hence helping with re-distributing the wealth across the network - presumably in a very fair fashion since it's the free market (exchanges).

In PoS this re-sell doesn't happen. Once you are chosen to mine a block (because of your stake) you mine it and that's it. You're not incentivized to redistribute your coins. You can hoard them because you don't have to rent any resources from outside the system.

I hate PoW energy consumption as well and I think that its purpose - literally competing to consume more energy - is quite horrible. But so far I don't think PoS offers the same properties as PoW: a fairer system to redistribute coins.

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#127
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gold has more transactions per day than all crypto coins combined. In terms of value it’s moving ~200 billion dollars per day in exchanges.

Exchange transactions and on-chain transactions are not the same, no?

I am talking about gold on exchanges, that’s excluding real world gold transactions. Adding or removing exchange transactions on both sides isn’t enough to surpass or even come close to gold by either total volume or total dollar value of transactions.

Look it up yourself if you don’t believe me. I always find it amusing that people are downvoting objective facts, but hey emotions trump truth.

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#128
post #107

> The granddaddy of all consensus mechanisms—behind Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero, and (for the time being at least) Ethereum—is called proof of work. Essentially, PoW makes adding transactions to the blockchain computationally—and therefore financially—very expensive, so as to discourage fraudulent activity. ... This passage reflects a deep-seated, widespread misunderstanding of how/why Bitcoin works. I suspect the auth…

Another way to describe this is that PoW is a Cybil resistance measure.

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#129
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a nicely researched collection of links, although I think they are a bit too quick to dismiss PoS as a lost cause. Perhaps PoW really is the superior system for now, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to research PoS systems.

POS might be the future, and if we find that it's impossible to predict which stakes will be doing validation, I'm all for Bitcoin upgrading to POS. Its just not ready today. No one is going to risk their Bitcoin savings on trying POS. Let ethereum test it, then BTC can adopt it after a few years.

BTC will never be PoS. Sorry, PoS is a dead end. Wait until those black swan event start splitting chains. They will be clambering for the PoW lifeboats.

Re: Cryptocurrency Blockchains Don’t Need to Be Energy Intensive

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Etherium 2.0 has been supposedly just around the corner for years and it never really arrives. They've been pretty public that it's years away for a while now. Nobody has ever said it's just around the corner until recently when it was given priority over the merge and is now estimated to be completed Q1 2022 (or Q4 2021 in the unlikely best-case scenario). > Proof of Work on the other hand doesn't have this issue.…

> Unless they ninja mine (pre-mine) like Satoshi did.... What proof would you offer of a premine by Satoshi?

It’s perhaps not technically a premine but practically it is. There’s a protection however - if any of those coins ever move Bitcoin will have a very interesting day.
Post reply on HN