Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble • Hacker News Board

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#141

Post by Bluestein » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 11:56 AM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #114

Bluestein wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. Point to the many, innovative, options.

Got some suggestions for your sibling comment by sumedh?

(I did not want to sound like I was advocating for anything in particular, but since it would be on topic, and you kindly ask :)

As you said, as a start, anything with a higher TPS (transactions per second) is more efficient, which helps. Some notables, in my mind (not exclusive, of course) ...

The Solana Chain ...

- https://solana.com/

I really love what Cartesi is doing: They are bringing Smart Contracts to the "linux stack", securely (same guarantees than on-chain) but -outside- of chain. This will, obviously, raise efficiencies ...

- https://cartesi.io/

The Fantom chain is high performance -and- their contracts are Ethereum-compatible (smart!), aside from it being a very nice, well thought out "ecosystem"

- https://fantom.foundation/

The NANO token makes it a point of pride, exactly how -much- more efficient ("Eco-friendly") it is than BTC, and their approach is interesting. (It has got some HN love lately and everything :)

- https://nano.org/

(On a tangent, I am also a fan of what FRAX is doing in the stablecoin space, bringing decentralization and transparency to that space ("Frax is the world’s first fractional-algorithmic stablecoin") ...

- https://frax.finance/

(Disclosure: Am currently holding CTSI and FXS and FRAX - All of the projects above have their corresponding tokens.

The points above stand, though :)

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#142

Post by Bluestein » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 12:22 PM UTC

geoduck14 wrote: post #2

Bitcoin can stay irrational longer than I can stay solvent.

I think your quip should be framed above the gates to all exchanges :)

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#143

Post by UncleMeat » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 1:07 PM UTC

Triv888 wrote: post #131

UncleMeat wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you stop mining bitcoins, anybody with a small rig can produce a double spend and destroy all trust in the network. It wouldn't disappear, but the coins wouldn't be worth much.

Proof of stake would solve that?

Changing the block size was so controversial that it split the community and created years of bad blood and claims of shilling. I don't believe that the core devs are capable of making such a huge change as moving to PoS.

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#144

Post by Aachen » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #120

Aachen wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard some skepticism regarding the PoS of eth, so I'm in "let's see it when it's there" mode, but I'm somewhat optimistic here. Can't go fast enough for my taste, I'm really curious if it'll turn out to be what it's supposed to! Hopefully this will also mean people start to move over to this better tech.

It's been running perfectly in production since Dec. 1, with over $5 billion in ETH staked so far. Migrating the legacy stake and EVM to it still needs to be done, but that's irrelevant to the consensus algorithm. It's just changing the data it reaches consensus about.

Interesting, I should look into this again and update my knowledge. Thanks for the reply!

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#145

Post by eloff » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 4:21 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #78

tehbeard wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Missing its wide applications in modern electronics, but ok.

Fringe applications you mean.

It is a fringe application, regardless of downvote. Usage in electronics is probably less than 1% of the demand for gold. That's the very definition of fringe.

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#146

Post by throwawayQuwcy » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:07 PM UTC

zadler wrote: post #65

throwawayQuwcy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already happening! There's approx 150,000 BTC locked in the Ethereum network as ERC20 tokens like WBTC and RENBTC https://wbtc.network/dashboard/order-book Ethereum is moving to proof of stake shortly. I imagine a lot more BTC will transfer over to take advantage of this & other benefits like defi interest

For the migration to be complete, there would need to be a coordination between the btc network and an eth contract to move the issuing of the remainder of the supply over to the contract. And an agreement of how the new units would be allocated; it seems doubtful that this could ever take place.

I don't think there's any reason for a 100% migration. It would be impossible to get consensus for that, like you said.

Anybody who wants to move their coins over can. There are plenty of economic, technical, and moral (climate change) reasons to do so.

Besides, when it's voluntary, people can choose to lock their coins into whichever network they like Ethereum, Cardano, Polkadot. (note: ETH is the only network that has currently has contracts able to lock BTC)

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#147

Post by packetlost » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:10 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #94

Aachen wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that were true, we'd be seeing fluctuations in how frequently blocks are being created depending on where the sun shines and where it's windy. Water power is more stable but not enough to explain the TWhs all disappearing into bitcoin every year. No need to do a lot of work surveying miners to disprove these trolls, also they'll just come up with a new argument like that it's the payment method of the future and t…

I am kinda surprised it's not higher, just because solar and wind energy is so cheap now I assumed it would be attractive. That said, even if it was run with renewable energy, at this point in time it would still contribute to emissions indirectly. That power could have been used to displace fossil fuel usage, so diverting it to bitcoin hashing causes a net emissions increase for... very little benefit.

Not to mention the eWaste created by all the useless ASICs, burned out graphics cards, and wonky otherwise-useless motherboards.

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#148

Post by rootusrootus » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 5:57 PM UTC

eloff wrote: post #145

eloff wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fringe applications you mean.

It is a fringe application, regardless of downvote. Usage in electronics is probably less than 1% of the demand for gold. That's the very definition of fringe.

> Usage in electronics is probably less than 1% of the demand for gold

It's actually 7.5%. Maybe you consider that fringe. How does it compare to bitcoin?

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#149

Post by trhway » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 7:24 PM UTC

tempestn wrote: post #95

trhway wrote: post #59

All the such energy/BTC arguments miss that BTC (and other crypto) mining in space has no limit and will become feasible when Starships start flying. And it looks to be more profitable than asteroid mining :) People frequently raise the issue of cooling in space while missing the fact that at 60C 1m2 radiates away 700w - enough to cool 3-4 mining GPUs which can basically be just slapped on that heatsink.

Surely the cost of blasting mining rigs into space would vastly outweigh any disadvantages of keeping them on the ground.

Not sure. For example at $100/kg blasting a manufactured home into space is comparable to getting a land to put it in Silicon Valley. The point here is that such low price of space access will drastically change a lot of calculations.

Re: Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble

#150

Post by JulianMorrison » Sun, Feb 28, 2021, 9:54 PM UTC

throwawayQuwcy wrote: post #146

zadler wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the migration to be complete, there would need to be a coordination between the btc network and an eth contract to move the issuing of the remainder of the supply over to the contract. And an agreement of how the new units would be allocated; it seems doubtful that this could ever take place.

I don't think there's any reason for a 100% migration. It would be impossible to get consensus for that, like you said. Anybody who wants to move their coins over can. There are plenty of economic, technical, and moral (climate change) reasons to do so. Besides, when it's voluntary, people can choose to lock their coins into whichever network they like Ethereum, Cardano, Polkadot. (note: ETH is the only network that…

The reason for a 100% migration is that Bitcoin ought to be switched off in its entirety. Which you can't do while it's being used.