Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 132 posts

Re: Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

#121

Post by datadata »

arcticbull wrote: post #118
datadata wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the cost of the transmission infrastructure costs more than the economic value of the energy it would transport, then you have stranded power.

Fine, I disagree but even if I were to concede surely there’s a better solution we can think of than looking up a big resistor. The question is how much so called stranded power is there, what percent of Bitcoin energy usage does this account for and is there really nothing useful we could do with it? Finally with “stranded coal” is it better to just not use it? This is just a talking point used to distract from the…

The original comment that bitcoin is carbon negative is ridiculous, I agree. But you are posting empty/wrong rebuttals as well.

In the case of flare gas, it is a byproduct of gathering oil that is unavoidable. The oil is economically worth collecting, but the extra gas is not. I think this can be more finely split into natural gas vs methane-- sometimes the natural gas is worth collecting, but the methane never is.

You could argue that there should be laws to force the methane to be collected and used elsewhere as a condition of accessing the oil. That might be overall better. But prior to bitcoin, that perfect solution was not really implemented. In this sense, bitcoin mining of flare gas is a step forward.

Note that the argument is not just that economic value is created by mining bitcoin, but that running the gas through a generator leads to cleaner combustion and thus less greenhouse gas emission than simply lighting the gas on fire. In this sense, the bitcoin flare gas mining operation by itself could be considered carbon negative (again, surely all bitcoin mining is not). The bitcoin mining pays for the generator. So bitcoin mining is giving the industry a subsidy that enables reduction of environmental harm. It is not perfect, but it is an improvement.

Re: Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

#122

Post by arcticbull »

datadata wrote: post #120
arcticbull wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is a centralized equivalent of bitcoin could run on a raspberry pi. Heck a proof of stake bitcoin could run on a raspberry pi. It’s a ridiculous system even Hal Finney thought was unsustainable 10 years ago. Value judgement aside the question was “is it carbon neutral” and the answer is a resounding no.

That's an entirely different topic/point. I was responding to your ridiculous point that 97% of bitcoin miners never find a block. You didn't even try to defend that point. What is your source around Hal Finney? I have not heard that.

> That's an entirely different topic/point.

The fact we have a system where 97% of all the equipment isn't used to ever do anything useful and instead "increase security" is an insanely wasteful system. Nobody has quantified what level of "security" is required. There's no feedback mechanism to pull back based on need because the need is fundamentally unquantified. It's a grey goo style uncontrolled positive feedback loop.

Each time more miners come online it's lauded as "more security is better" - but how much security do you need! The answer isn't "as much as you can afford period no follow-up questions."

You don't have 75 seatbelts in your car because "security." You don't use a dump truck to take your kids to school because "security." And you don't use a global army of computers consuming 100+TWh/yr to process 2-3 tx/sec because "security."

Ultimately it's a half-baked security model, and Bitcoin is a half-baked proof of concept that escaped the lab and gained a cult following.

> What is your source around Hal Finney? I have not heard that.

My source is Hal Finney [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/halfin/status/1153096538

Re: Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

#123

Post by arcticbull »

datadata wrote: post #121
arcticbull wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, I disagree but even if I were to concede surely there’s a better solution we can think of than looking up a big resistor. The question is how much so called stranded power is there, what percent of Bitcoin energy usage does this account for and is there really nothing useful we could do with it? Finally with “stranded coal” is it better to just not use it? This is just a talking point used to distract from the…

The original comment that bitcoin is carbon negative is ridiculous, I agree. But you are posting empty/wrong rebuttals as well. In the case of flare gas, it is a byproduct of gathering oil that is unavoidable. The oil is economically worth collecting, but the extra gas is not. I think this can be more finely split into natural gas vs methane-- sometimes the natural gas is worth collecting, but the methane never is. Y…

> But prior to bitcoin, that perfect solution was not really implemented. In this sense, bitcoin mining of flare gas is a step forward.

Prior to bitcoin they flared it - or didn't. Now there's an economic incentive not to find another solution. Now the oil and gas companies are incentivized to prevent that better solution because there's something in it for them not to. So we make it harder to solve 100% of the problem because this gets us 5% of the way there and pays us not to.

Re: Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

#124

Post by datadata »

arcticbull wrote: post #122
datadata wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an entirely different topic/point. I was responding to your ridiculous point that 97% of bitcoin miners never find a block. You didn't even try to defend that point. What is your source around Hal Finney? I have not heard that.

> That's an entirely different topic/point. The fact we have a system where 97% of all the equipment isn't used to ever do anything useful and instead "increase security" is an insanely wasteful system. Nobody has quantified what level of "security" is required. There's no feedback mechanism to pull back based on need because the need is fundamentally unquantified. It's a grey goo style uncontrolled positive feedback…

You didn't understand my point. If bitcoin had 1 minute blocks instead of 10 minute blocks, more than 3% of miners would find a block in their life time. But that change alone would not change any meaningful properties of bitcoin. You think bitcoin is a total waste, I get it. But that statistic doesn't help your argument.

> The answer isn't "as much as you can afford period no follow-up questions."

You are right, and this isn't how bitcoin works. The amount of mining should be determined by the block reward, market price, and fees per block. Mining in excess of this is not economically rational, and shouldn't happen. So it is not "unlimited security" at any cost"

Where in that tweet does Hal characterize bitcoin as ridiculous or unsustainable?

Re: Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

#125

Post by datadata »

arcticbull wrote: post #123
datadata wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original comment that bitcoin is carbon negative is ridiculous, I agree. But you are posting empty/wrong rebuttals as well. In the case of flare gas, it is a byproduct of gathering oil that is unavoidable. The oil is economically worth collecting, but the extra gas is not. I think this can be more finely split into natural gas vs methane-- sometimes the natural gas is worth collecting, but the methane never is. Y…

> But prior to bitcoin, that perfect solution was not really implemented. In this sense, bitcoin mining of flare gas is a step forward. Prior to bitcoin they flared it - or didn't. Now there's an economic incentive not to find another solution. Now the oil and gas companies are incentivized to prevent that better solution because there's something in it for them not to. So we make it harder to solve 100% of the probl…

Cool, so you moved the goal posts from saying "there is no such thing as stranded energy", to saying "yes, bitcoin is reducing the environmental impact of flare gas burning, but we should be doing something else instead (no concrete ideas) that can solve this problem even better". I have explained to you how bitcoin can have a net positive impact on the environment, given existing practices. You now say that since this is not a perfect solution, we should go back to harming the environment more, presumably since you have already made up your mind that bitcoin is evil?

Re: Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

#126

Post by arcticbull »

datadata wrote: post #124
arcticbull wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's an entirely different topic/point. The fact we have a system where 97% of all the equipment isn't used to ever do anything useful and instead "increase security" is an insanely wasteful system. Nobody has quantified what level of "security" is required. There's no feedback mechanism to pull back based on need because the need is fundamentally unquantified. It's a grey goo style uncontrolled positive feedback…

You didn't understand my point. If bitcoin had 1 minute blocks instead of 10 minute blocks, more than 3% of miners would find a block in their life time. But that change alone would not change any meaningful properties of bitcoin. You think bitcoin is a total waste, I get it. But that statistic doesn't help your argument. > The answer isn't "as much as you can afford period no follow-up questions." You are right, and…

> But that change alone would not change any meaningful properties of bitcoin.

Sure it would, it would change that resource cost per transaction.

> You think bitcoin is a total waste, I get it. But that statistic doesn't help your argument.

I disagree, if 97% of servers at AWS were there for some hand-wavey notion of 'providing security' without quantification I think Amazon would be roundly mocked.

> You are right, and this isn't how bitcoin works.

Yes it is. You just re-stated my position with slightly different wording.

I said the security model was "as much as you can afford." You can afford block reward plus fees times price. The security model is "spend as much of that as you can without regard for what you need to achieve security." The issue is that block reward plus fees times price is not a function of how much security is required.

> Where in that tweet does Hal characterize bitcoin as ridiculous or unsustainable?

I never said 'ridiculous' - obviously I don't think Hal would make that claim, so let's stick to what I did say :) I think it is not unreasonable to extrapolate from his tweet that he believe that at the limit CO2 would be an issue. CO2 itself is an issue of sustainability. You can disagree with that interpretation, but I do not think that an average unbiased observer would find my reading unreasonable.

You seem to be trying to win an argument at all costs, putting words into my mouth, running with uncharitable interpretations and arguing in bad faith - in this thread and the other. If you read carefully you'll find I paid close attention not to move goalposts. I'm going to cut it off here. It's particularly silly because you've already admitted you agree to my premise that it is not carbon neutral.

Have a good evening though.

Re: Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

#127

Post by datadata »

arcticbull wrote: post #126
datadata wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't understand my point. If bitcoin had 1 minute blocks instead of 10 minute blocks, more than 3% of miners would find a block in their life time. But that change alone would not change any meaningful properties of bitcoin. You think bitcoin is a total waste, I get it. But that statistic doesn't help your argument. > The answer isn't "as much as you can afford period no follow-up questions." You are right, and…

> But that change alone would not change any meaningful properties of bitcoin. Sure it would, it would change that resource cost per transaction. > You think bitcoin is a total waste, I get it. But that statistic doesn't help your argument. I disagree, if 97% of servers at AWS were there for some hand-wavey notion of 'providing security' without quantification I think Amazon would be roundly mocked. > You are right,…

> I disagree, if 97% of servers at AWS were there for some hand-wavey notion of 'providing security' without quantification I think Amazon would be roundly mocked.

Again, you fail to understand that the number of a machines that find a block could be changed by making the blocks smaller. You could do that by also reducing block size to keep the total number of transactions the same. But the larger point is that mining pools make it so that mining machines are paid for partial work, even without finding a block. This enables the utility of mining to be measured by hash rate, rather than by number of blocks solved.

You called it a gray goo style positive feedback loop. It is not, there is a upper bound on how much will be spent. There is no feedback loop as well, if the price goes up, more will be spent on mining, but that does not feedback to make the price go higher as required for a loop. Moreover, the block reward is exponentially decaying.

Your reading of the tweet is that a person saying a system should use less CO2 implies that person believes the system is unsustainable. I don't think that is reasonable, e.g. an Airline CEO launching an initiative to reduce the airlines CO2 usage would not believe that the airline is unsustainable. I did misread the other part of your statement-- you said bitcoin is ridiculous, not that Hal said that.

Re: Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

#128

Post by skot9000 »

arcticbull wrote: post #65
jonstaab wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is carbon-negative believe it or not. Not that CO2 emissions are a meaningful measure of environmental stewardship.

I absolutely, unequivocally do not believe it. Bitcoin consumes 111TWh annually, the power consumption of the Netherlands, and emits 62Mt of CO2 per year, the same as Belarus. It also yields 42kT of e-waste per year. Each transaction produces 650kg of CO2, consumes 1160kWh of power (as much as 40 days consumption for the average American home) and produces 450g of e-waste (about the same as hucking your iPad into the…

Digiconomist’s model is flawed and doesn’t represent actual mining electricity use or carbon output.

Also he’s a central banker, so not exactly motivated to fix it.

Re: Nostr is a stupid simple P2P protocol that works, built by builders

#130

Post by couchand »

irusensei wrote: post #95
couchand wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or wanting to operate in New York State as of this week!

Is it forbidden to calculate in New York now? Had no idea.

I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse, but it bears repeating that there are plenty of simple activities that are forbidden by policy, and it would be just silly to argue that there shouldn't be any.
Post reply on HN