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

271–280 of 381 posts

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

#271

Post by atweiden »

shawnz wrote: post #267
atweiden wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In spite of what PoS investors commonly claim, stakemining $COIN isn’t “fair” merely because Joe Bob can earn the same X% per annum that $BIG_VC can earn, where $BIG_VC was able to invest at pennies on the dollar in an ICO, pre-ICO or pre-mine. PoW mining is fundamentally more fair than PoS mining because $BIG_VC has to spend money to mine at all. To mine a PoW coin, $BIG_VC needs to pay for electricity, for ASICs an…

In PoW coins you permanently lose the "stake". So that just means that to achieve the same level of security in a PoS coin, you have to stake a lot more (since you are only losing the time value of the stake).

> In PoW coins you permanently lose the "stake". So that just means that to achieve the same level of security in a PoS coin, you have to stake a lot more (since you are only losing the time value of the stake).

PoS network security reduces down to top-down human intervention: because PoS networks are unmined, they lack all hashing power which could otherwise be used to build a quantitative fork ranking protocol. When forks occur in PoS, the network stewards have to “pick” a winning forked chain, and enforce that decision on the entire network.

Because there’s by definition no hashing power involved in reaching that decision, it’s a bit of a wonder why PoS networks rely on blockchains at all. PoS security doesn’t really depend on anything other than the level of trust you have in the centralized authorities who control the PoS network. In the best of cases, it’s akin to trusting a Debian-like organization to annoint a specific branch of a Git repository as containing the true history of changes during any project-level dispute.

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

#272

Post by nine_k »

atweiden wrote: post #210
skybrian wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holders of Bitcoin want to see the price go up, which makes the problem worse. So the primary incentive is very bad and that's how we got here. More enlightened self-interest would be to want to see the price go up without using more electricity, but this is secondary to the primary incentive. To get action from enlightened self-interest, there needs to be leadership for making changes. (Ethereum seems to have this?)

> To get action from enlightened self-interest, there needs to be leadership for making changes. (Ethereum seems to have this?) Knowledge preceedes enlightenment. For example, Git is also green-friendly, and shares a virtually identical consensus model to pure PoS consensus designs. It’s just that “green-friendliness” wasn’t a design goal of cryptocurrency — creating a lasting store of value sans institutions, exchan…

Bitcoin is trustless, it is designed to withstand quite serious attempts at committing fraud (haha, a pun).

Git was designed for cooperative work, and critically depends on trust (commit access).

Merkle trees are easy, scalable schemes of trustless consensus, less so :(

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

#274

Post by monkishrex »

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…

Thanks for highlighting why scaling is what matters and how BSV is obviously the only chain worth anything. And no, price is meaningless when it's 80% wash traded ponzi money

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

#275

Post by monkishrex »

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…

You just wrote an entire thread on why BSV is the ONLY system capable of anything... Lol? That's the point toom -- the more TXs in the block, the more efficient the system. That's why Merkel's, that's why small-world... That's why no CTOR or check points. Because SCALING. BSV is O(1), none of the other "projects" are or even come close to O(1) which is what this site is very elegantly showing

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

#276

Post by ValiumMm »

monkishrex wrote: post #275
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…

You just wrote an entire thread on why BSV is the ONLY system capable of anything... Lol? That's the point toom -- the more TXs in the block, the more efficient the system. That's why Merkel's, that's why small-world... That's why no CTOR or check points. Because SCALING. BSV is O(1), none of the other "projects" are or even come close to O(1) which is what this site is very elegantly showing

THIS, THIS THIS THIS. How does Toom, not understand this. Not only does it scale but then miners get more fee's from more transactions. It baffles me the keyboard gymnastics against BSV, while showing exactly why BSV is the best.

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

#277

Post by dudewhat1 »

impassionedrule wrote: post #156
onion-soup wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this getting downvoted?

Because Bitcoin SV's potentially huge block size restricts who can actually run a node, making it very centralized

look at BTC miners with 1mb blocks and its only a few big ones with majority of hash power. Its the inevitable 80/20

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

#278

Post by Weroku »

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…

Sooo you tell me effectilfy not to worry because bitcoin doesn't consume terrawats of energy as a whole system?

We don't need all those miners like you and mining and consuming terrawats of energy?

And at the end of the day, when i own bitcoins or take part in bitcoins in any form i have a green thumb and our planet is not additonally getting destroyed through the massive amount of energy consumed into finding the right hash?

Did you finnaly convince yourself that just because you consume water energy what you are doing is okay?

"We believe that Bitcoin and other CryptoCurrencies will play an important role in the future of finance, technology and governance. We conduct our business in a way that protects the blockchain against plurality attacks, and our planet's climate against warming."

Let me ask you a few questions to your statement:

Why do you support Bitcoin in particular and name bitcoin and don't use something like etherium which is potentially switching to PoS?

The energy you consume (apparently already 2 mega watts) how do you know that this energy couldn't have been used for something which creates direct and longlasting value?

Do you make any investments into renewable energy?

How do you feel about bitcoin using as a whole system (where you part of) a lot of energy?

How do you feel about bitcoin using a lot of dirty energy?

What is your take on how bitcoin can help global warming (and i actually mean cooling down the planet not activly heating it)?

Do you use your waste heat in any form or do you heat the environment with it?

Have you / your company invested in any form of research or change to bitcoin itself to reduce its 'energy consumption for preventing double-spend'?

Do you believe in the future of PoW or PoS? If you believe in PoS why do you support currently bitcoin?

Biden (after other countries have done this much earlier) is now back on climate change support and targets 0 emissions. How do you think the future with bitcoin and 0 emission will look like?

And at the end of the day: Based on your FAQ and the increase of power prices, will you able to consume that much energy for bitcoin in the long run?

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

#279

Post by atweiden »

22c wrote: post #270
atweiden wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In spite of what PoS investors commonly claim, stakemining $COIN isn’t “fair” merely because Joe Bob can earn the same X% per annum that $BIG_VC can earn, where $BIG_VC was able to invest at pennies on the dollar in an ICO, pre-ICO or pre-mine. PoW mining is fundamentally more fair than PoS mining because $BIG_VC has to spend money to mine at all. To mine a PoW coin, $BIG_VC needs to pay for electricity, for ASICs an…

By that logic, diligent savers who put their money in a savings account to earn interest isn't "fair". It's fundamentally more fair to invest in expensive heavy machinery and dig precious metals out of the ground.

> By that logic, diligent savers who put their money in a savings account to earn interest isn't "fair". It's fundamentally more fair to invest in expensive heavy machinery and dig precious metals out of the ground.

If by “diligent savers” you mean the Queen of England who was given 10% of the total supply of British pounds on day one, then yes, it very much isn’t fair. The Queen’s fortunate genetics in relation to her preferential access to British pounds, and the interest income generated from that preferential access is just one step removed from $BIG_VC getting in on an ICO, pre-ICO or premine by virtue of having insider connections.

Also: of course digging up gold out of the ground is more fair than effortlessly profiting from your country’s political system.

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

#280

Post by fidelramos »

homedepotdave wrote: post #254
BluSyn wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Energy used / total value secured" is a better measurement. "Double-spend prevented" isn't calculable. Important to remember that the energy used on mining both secures current and *PAST* transactions, that's the entire point of the block chain . I think "total value secured" captures this point. I find it frustrating that crypto-currencies are judged by their energy usage, meanwhile traditional fiat currencies are…

“The total energy required to maintain a secure and stable fiat currency is likely orders of magnitude greater than that of Bitcoin today.” No way. You hear this argument all the time — that fiat currency also uses tons of energy - but I just don’t think it’s true (relative to the amount of transaction throughout, and also in absolute terms). Bitcoin mining uses something like 0.5-0.6% of global electricity consumpti…

That is one of the important points point made by jtoomin in the first post of this thread: the energy consumption of a PoW blockchain if not proportional to the number of transactions. This means we could have everyone, everywhere, using a PoW blockchain with the same percentage of energy consumption as today (although it would probably rise as price would arguably also rise as demand increases, but it would eventually find an equilibrium, it will never "consume all electricity").
Post reply on HN