Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index • Hacker News Board

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#271

Post by ssutch3 » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:16 AM UTC

mrb wrote: post #263

me551ah wrote: post #193

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this computing power is in the form of custom ASIC's, but the figure is really staggering. And all of the 80704290.84 Petaflops, consume 73.12 TWh to repeatedly calculate SHA256 ! What could be the world's most powerful network does absolutely nothing but crunch h…

It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed. There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties. Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is corre…

Disregarding the energy cost, couldn't a "dumb" PoW be more computationally complex than Sha256, such that a relatively larger number of computers could compete in the consensus algorithm, thereby increasing decentralization? To me, Bitcoin doesn't seem that decentralized, considering the ASIC chip manufacturers control the majority mining stake. Intel has even gotten into the game.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#272

Post by agumonkey » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:19 AM UTC

me551ah wrote: post #193

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this computing power is in the form of custom ASIC's, but the figure is really staggering. And all of the 80704290.84 Petaflops, consume 73.12 TWh to repeatedly calculate SHA256 ! What could be the world's most powerful network does absolutely nothing but crunch h…

Isn't it the idea behind some other kinds of blockchain ? computing things other than hashes so that you get currency and results ?

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#273

Post by dx034 » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:20 AM UTC

reportgunner wrote: post #258

me551ah wrote: post #193

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this computing power is in the form of custom ASIC's, but the figure is really staggering. And all of the 80704290.84 Petaflops, consume 73.12 TWh to repeatedly calculate SHA256 ! What could be the world's most powerful network does absolutely nothing but crunch h…

Big number scary. Orange coin bad!

For the environment it certainly is.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#274

Post by mrb » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:20 AM UTC

danmaz74 wrote: post #265

mrb wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed. There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties. Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is corre…

If the only way to have a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency is to waste an inordinate amount of energy and increase our global warming and pollution problems, then we'll have to do without that kind of digital currency. It's a matter of priorities.

"inordinate amount of energy"

It's comparable to what a single hydro dam like the Three Gorges Dam can produce. Don't fall prey to the scary comparisons BECI employs to mislead its readers.

Global warming is critical, but there are other energy wasters much, much bigger than Bitcoin miners.

Besides, as it's been said many times, miners tend to use renewables since they have become cheaper than fossil fuel power plants. A recent paper by Stoll et al. estimated CO2 emissions as being comparable to what a single city like Las Vegas emits: https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/113943906857019392...

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#275

Post by dx034 » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:21 AM UTC

mrb wrote: post #263

me551ah wrote: post #193

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this computing power is in the form of custom ASIC's, but the figure is really staggering. And all of the 80704290.84 Petaflops, consume 73.12 TWh to repeatedly calculate SHA256 ! What could be the world's most powerful network does absolutely nothing but crunch h…

It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed. There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties. Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is corre…

Once we have enough green energy I'd totally agree with you. But currently, I don't think we can afford adding that much CO² for a currency that isn't widely used anywhere in the world.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#276

Post by trickstra » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:22 AM UTC

danmaz74 wrote: post #265

mrb wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed. There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties. Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is corre…

If the only way to have a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency is to waste an inordinate amount of energy and increase our global warming and pollution problems, then we'll have to do without that kind of digital currency. It's a matter of priorities.

It's not a "waste" if the result is a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency.

And the global warming argument is a many times debunked hoax - if anyone has better use of that electricity, they are welcome to use it, which will make mining cryptocurrency unprofitable. Except in the other cases, the benefits go to the single entity that owns the business, whereas with cryptocurrency every participant benefits from the stronger network. Global warming is caused by using fossil fuels to make electricity, mining crypto doesn't require fossil fuels. There are other ways to make electricity, let's focus on them.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#277

Post by dx034 » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:22 AM UTC

foepys wrote: post #199

me551ah wrote: post #193

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this computing power is in the form of custom ASIC's, but the figure is really staggering. And all of the 80704290.84 Petaflops, consume 73.12 TWh to repeatedly calculate SHA256 ! What could be the world's most powerful network does absolutely nothing but crunch h…

That's like saying a water bottle factory has only an output of N water bottles per day while the Three Gorges Dam can output N million liters of water a day with the difference that the Three Gorges Dam actually produces something useful, electricity, while doing so. Just because it's a higher number, it doesn't mean it's equally useful.

So supercomputers produce nothing useful but the bitcoin network does? In the long term I'm not sure we gained anything so far by all the energy spent on bitcoins. Some people got richer, some got poorer but I've yet to see any benefits for society from bitcoin.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#278

Post by cryptica » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:24 AM UTC

It's disturbing that people are still praising Bitcoin in spite of that fact that it can only handle at most 4 transactions per second and consumes as much energy as Austria.

Same goes for Ethereum at 15 TPS... Ethereum is an over-engineered mess of technical debt. It's been stretched way past its original design goals.

All these valuable cryptocurrencies are a symptom of a failing capitalist system. The only reason that they had value in the first place was because the rest of the economy was so inefficient and speculative that they started to look like a wise investment in comparison (especially as a hedge).

The rise of useless jobs is real, this is especially true in the cryptocurrency industry. The amount of human effort and talent which has been wasted on Bitcoin, Ethereum and other overhyped, poorly engineered cryptocurrencies is staggering.

Not only is it wasteful, but this industry is producing a new wave of engineers and scientists who are gullible (hype-driven), unskilled and complacent; a dangerous combination.

Most cryptocurrency projects were created by juniors who had limited understanding of distributed systems and scalability at the time. If Vitalik Buterin had to start Ethereum from scratch today (knowing what he knows now), I think he would design it very differently. But instead, he is forced to support the existing network and protocol even though the only real way to fix the project is by starting from scratch with a new foundation.

It's like if you start building a 1-storey apartment and after you finish, you realize that you actually needed a skyscraper; but instead of starting again from scratch, you decide to re-use the existing building foundation with the same investors, same architects, same engineers, same builders. You even allow the existing tenants continue to live inside the house while you continue building on top. It's probably not going to work because you don't have the right foundation, your team doesn't have experience building tall structures and you don't have any experience leading projects of such complexity - The fact is that your odds of success are extremely low; your foundation is probably not strong enough, your team is probably not smart enough and not adaptable enough and you, the leader, are probably not humble enough to accept reality; so you will fail to take the necessary steps to fix the problems.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#279

Post by dx034 » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:30 AM UTC

btcd wrote: post #223

puranjay wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know what problem Bitcoin is solving anymore. I haven't seen a single website accepting Bitcoin as a payment in the last whole year.

Bitcoin's main function is store of value, with the additional benefit of being relatively easy to transfer. It is basically a more convenient form a gold. After all these years of growth, Bitcoin's market cap becomes its own unique edge. One simply cannot transfer significant amount, say tens of millions of dollars, easily in any other crypto currency. The cost of energy is minuscule compared to alternative means of…

> The cost of energy is minuscule compared to alternative means of achieving the same: vaults, guards, banks, lawyers, etc.

Is it though? Gold in vaults easily outstrips the value assigned to all bitcoins and I doubt these vaults use even 1 Twh/year. Vaults are only environmentally expensive in construction. And since we have a surplus of vaults and bunkers (from digitization of stock trading and the end of the cold war, respectively), the only cost is protection. A few guards and some cameras and high security doors can protect >$10mio worth of gold, probably not using more energy than a few households. Managing a farm of ASICs for Bitcoin generating that amount is probably more labor intensive.

Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

#280

Post by mrb » Thu, Oct 17, 2019, 8:30 AM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #275

mrb wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed. There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties. Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is corre…

Once we have enough green energy I'd totally agree with you. But currently, I don't think we can afford adding that much CO² for a currency that isn't widely used anywhere in the world.

«isn't widely used anywhere»

Bitcoin processes 10 million transactions a month (300k/day) and it's generally been growing over the years: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactions.ht...