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

Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

coincarboncap.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 381 posts

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#131

Post by ntr-- »

nivexous wrote: post #116
EGreg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very dubious way of looking at it. Blockchains all have a bottleneck. All transactions in the world have to go through the miner. And the situation is actually worse than that because we don't know who will solve the useless Proof of Work hashcash function ahead of time, so EVERY potential transaction is gossipped to EVERY potential miner, and then the miners ALL go to town wasting electricity. How great! An…

Almost all IP traffic goes through an Internet backbone router which can process 100Gbps+. It's no problem. I suggest people think of Bitcoin miners like this in the future. These would be big operations, yes, but they are economically incentivized to honesty, and there will be plenty of competition. Once you use your imagination, or try to build a node yourself, you'll see the only real bottleneck in Bitcoin's archi…

"Trusted backbone transaction processors" that don't use megawatts of power to do this work have existed for some time as "banks".

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#133

Post by onion-soup »

zhoujianfu wrote: post #124
onion-soup wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Because SV does not limit block size which allows tremendous throughput. Google block size war. >re-used bitcoins early work All forks share the same blockchain up until certain block.

We’ll, for POW coins the “energy efficiency” falls directly out of the market cap divided by the number of transactions. BSV has essentially free transactions and not a high market cap, and so has a (suspiciously?) high txn count to price ratio.

No, txs are cheap because blocks are big enough to allow high throuoghput. BTC has 1 MB block so txs compete to get into next bloock.

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#134

Post by AlexCoventry »

GBiT wrote: post #19
danielvf wrote: post #3

Cool chart! Interesting to see how much of an outlier Bitcoin is. The middle tier currencies in this list (USDC, USDT, etc) are built on Ethereum, so once Ethereum finishes its switch over to proof-of-stake, both they and Ethereum will drop down to almost nothing in terms of power used per transaction.

We will see how proof of stake will work, and in FAQ is a paper about it. POS have one big problem, that you only have to buy coins once and stake them and you will get richer every day by doing nothing without any additional investment. Basically it will make rich richer and more centralized. We will see how it will works in future.

That paper is quite old, and I believe its objections are addressed by new PoS systems. In particular "costless simulation" is addressed by using cryptographically verifiable randomness, e.g. the VRF-based lottery in Algorand, and the VDF in Eth 2.0.

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#135

Post by nivexous »

ntr-- wrote: post #131
nivexous wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all IP traffic goes through an Internet backbone router which can process 100Gbps+. It's no problem. I suggest people think of Bitcoin miners like this in the future. These would be big operations, yes, but they are economically incentivized to honesty, and there will be plenty of competition. Once you use your imagination, or try to build a node yourself, you'll see the only real bottleneck in Bitcoin's archi…

"Trusted backbone transaction processors" that don't use megawatts of power to do this work have existed for some time as "banks".

No. In this design users don't trust miners. Users trust Bitcoin. This is important. Banks can censor. Banks can go down. Banks can be forced to confiscate your money by a single court. But if one miner were to act up, other miners around the globe could keep them in check, and apps and users could switch around as desired. It's an incentivized complete system that you can't reduce this way.

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#136

Post by dane-pgp »

wyager wrote: post #110
SubiculumCode wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be wrong, but collusion is hard to achieve via provably random selection procedures for validators of transactions, etc.

Network participants are free to ignore the results of provably random selection procedures and “re-roll”. In general there is no known way to impose real cost on protocol violations like this. This is the genius of PoW; it uniquely associates real-world expenditures with protocol actions. It’s probably impossible to replicate this in a more efficient, but still secure and reliable, way.

I'm not sure if this is how it works, but it should be possible to avoid the "re-roll" problem:

Each node picks a random value, and publishes the hash of it to the blockchain, then, when the network has reached finality on what all the hashes are, the nodes publish the random values themselves, and the network takes the XOR of all of them.

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#138

Post by neither_color »

codelord wrote: post #117
toomim wrote: post #36

As a Bitcoin miner ( https://toom.im ), while I appreciate the work put into it, this particular metric of "transactions per kW" might not work the way you expect. The main point that you should understand is that a PoW blockchain's energy usage is not proportional to its transactions. I'll say that a different way: the transactions themselves do not use any energy in mining. I'll say this in a third way: it takes ex…

On your website that you linked says "We conduct our business in a way that protects ... our planet's climate against warming." Can you elaborate how providing infra to mine Bitcoin is helping the planet against global warming? Aren't you doing the exact opposite? If you are using 100% green energy, that energy can be used for something productive not providing PoW. Note Bitcoin alone currently consumes 0.55% of worl…

>If you are using 100% green energy, that energy can be used for something productive not providing PoW

You can say the same thing about ANY activity that isn't an arbitrarily defined form of altruism. Sports? Concerts? Video games? All vast wastes of time, money, and energy that could be spent fighting poverty or feeding the poor. This betrays the intention of criticizing bitcoin's energy usage because it moves the goal post of "...but but it's not using renewable energy" to "...but but that renewable energy is not being used for what I want it to be used for".

Re: Coin Carbon Cap – PoW cryptocurrencies ranked by energy efficiency

#139

Post by [deleted] »

ntr-- wrote: post #131
nivexous wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all IP traffic goes through an Internet backbone router which can process 100Gbps+. It's no problem. I suggest people think of Bitcoin miners like this in the future. These would be big operations, yes, but they are economically incentivized to honesty, and there will be plenty of competition. Once you use your imagination, or try to build a node yourself, you'll see the only real bottleneck in Bitcoin's archi…

"Trusted backbone transaction processors" that don't use megawatts of power to do this work have existed for some time as "banks".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN