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

'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 90 posts

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#41

Post by shawnz »

arcticbull wrote: post #40
shawnz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The efficiency of Visa isn't comparable because it solves a completely different problem than Bitcoin. And yes, in most cases we can pay each other just fine without Bitcoin. That doesn't negate its specific usefulness. It's already well documented that you don't see the trustlessness and decentralization to be a value for you personally. If that's the case then simply don't buy any. Those who do get value from those…

Sorry its no longer that simple. It's wasting as much power as all of Switzerland and all of Austria combined. 52MT of CO2 emitted annually. 10kT of e-waste. And growing like grey goo. [1] Dormant coal facilities are now being re-activated to hash noise as fast as they can. [2] This is literally everyone's problem now and we should all do everything we can, tell everyone we can, to shut this down before it's too late…

As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable.

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#42

Post by ziml77 »

arcticbull wrote: post #40
shawnz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The efficiency of Visa isn't comparable because it solves a completely different problem than Bitcoin. And yes, in most cases we can pay each other just fine without Bitcoin. That doesn't negate its specific usefulness. It's already well documented that you don't see the trustlessness and decentralization to be a value for you personally. If that's the case then simply don't buy any. Those who do get value from those…

Sorry its no longer that simple. It's wasting as much power as all of Switzerland and all of Austria combined. 52MT of CO2 emitted annually. 10kT of e-waste. And growing like grey goo. [1] Dormant coal facilities are now being re-activated to hash noise as fast as they can. [2] This is literally everyone's problem now and we should all do everything we can, tell everyone we can, to shut this down before it's too late…

A point that I always try bring up is that adding more mining capacity shifts the distribution of coins but it doesn't change the rate of mining at all.

Ideally you'd have the compute power be tiny amounts divided up over a large number of people. But that would require everyone participating to be principled and using Bitcoin because of its decentralized nature instead of as a way to make money. Human nature would never let that happen.

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#43

Post by operator-name »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #17
_Microft wrote: post #3

Side note: "Minting" sounds so much nicer than "mining". Minting evokes connotations of gold and kings and craftsmen doing skilled work. Mining on the other hand is dirty. I associate digging, holes in the ground, mining waste, depths and darkness with that. Maybe crypto [0] currencies would have had it a tiny bit easier to not look like an environmentally bad idea (this is purely about the looks of it , not reality)…

I'm not so sure "cryptocurrencies" is a bad word: it's basically cryptography everywhere. But transforming "crypto" to mean "cryptocurrency" is bad I agree. Ethereum seems to be very serious about moving to proof-of-stake. It is a big project and they don't seem very concerned about the papers saying that "proof of stake cannot possibly work". I don't know if PoS can work or not but it's going to be costly for attack…

These days the phrase cryptocurrency is a misnomer, very few blockchain projects are designed to be just a currency.

Ethereum is the native currency of the Ethereum blockchain but Ethereum is not only a currency but a smart contact platform. Tokens on these platforms are rarely currencies too, as an example they can represent voting power, a stake in a software project or virtual goods.

Even blockchain is becoming a misnomer as most base player platforms are using more intersting techniques.

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#44

Post by ziml77 »

ineedasername wrote: post #35
ulrikrasmussen wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? It's not like PayPal because the sender is actually anonymous (assuming that exact amounts are hidden by always withdrawing fixed size coins).

Bitcoin isn't quite anonymous, as a variety of criminals have found out. Cash is anonymous: there is no unique identifier associated either with the transaction or the parties to the transaction. Bitcoin on the other hand is, at best, pseudonymous. This is particularly problematic because it gives information about true identities when the owner of coins wants to spend it in any way on anything where bitcoin is not a…

And figuring out those addresses can come from finding another criminal address. By its whole design Bitcoin lets everyone see which wallets have transacted with each other.

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#45

Post by arcticbull »

shawnz wrote: post #41
arcticbull wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry its no longer that simple. It's wasting as much power as all of Switzerland and all of Austria combined. 52MT of CO2 emitted annually. 10kT of e-waste. And growing like grey goo. [1] Dormant coal facilities are now being re-activated to hash noise as fast as they can. [2] This is literally everyone's problem now and we should all do everything we can, tell everyone we can, to shut this down before it's too late…

As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable.

> As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US.

Luckily Bitcoin mining is utterly centralized. In fact turning off a single mine in Xinjiang cut power consumption by 1/4-1/2.

> Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit?

No. Is idle device power in the US rising? Some data shows one of the biggest sources of idle power is halogen bulbs being left on which are being replaced with LEDs over time - unlike the exponential rise in BTC power consumption. Not to mention, it requires 400,000,000 people to each act. Killing Bitcoin requires a few people to act. Much easier. And of course, both should be done.

> Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable.

Yes, much more when we choose intentionally 400,000X less efficient technologies because of idealism or because they're "neat." Living in a society requires we make compromises to ensure our shared survival. Our consumption is the sum of our choices. Time to start making some better ones.

This whataboutism and nihilism is pretty much a guarantee of inaction on all fronts. Step up and do the right thing!

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#46

Post by arcticbull »

ziml77 wrote: post #42
arcticbull wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry its no longer that simple. It's wasting as much power as all of Switzerland and all of Austria combined. 52MT of CO2 emitted annually. 10kT of e-waste. And growing like grey goo. [1] Dormant coal facilities are now being re-activated to hash noise as fast as they can. [2] This is literally everyone's problem now and we should all do everything we can, tell everyone we can, to shut this down before it's too late…

A point that I always try bring up is that adding more mining capacity shifts the distribution of coins but it doesn't change the rate of mining at all. Ideally you'd have the compute power be tiny amounts divided up over a large number of people. But that would require everyone participating to be principled and using Bitcoin because of its decentralized nature instead of as a way to make money. Human nature would n…

Indeed, because proof of waste will centralize around the place where the wasted resources are the cheapest.

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#47

Post by shawnz »

arcticbull wrote: post #45
shawnz wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable.

> As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Luckily Bitcoin mining is utterly centralized. In fact turning off a single mine in Xinjiang cut power consumption by 1/4-1/2. > Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? No. Is idle device power in the US rising? Some data shows one of the biggest sources of idle power is halogen bul…

I never said anything about which technology was easier to kill. The question is which technology can be made more efficient while retaining its utility. The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful? I already know you believe it's not useful, but it's not up to a single individual to decide that.

> when we choose intentionally 400,000X less efficient technologies because of idealism or because they're "neat."

Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficiency to technologies like Visa which solve a totally different problem. So this is a useless and misleading metric aside from the obvious strawman that cryptocurrencies are only useful because they are "neat".

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#48

Post by arcticbull »

shawnz wrote: post #47
arcticbull wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Luckily Bitcoin mining is utterly centralized. In fact turning off a single mine in Xinjiang cut power consumption by 1/4-1/2. > Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? No. Is idle device power in the US rising? Some data shows one of the biggest sources of idle power is halogen bul…

I never said anything about which technology was easier to kill. The question is which technology can be made more efficient while retaining its utility. The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful? I already know you believe it's not useful, but it's not up to a single individual to…

> The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful?

Not talking about Bitcoin, just PoW. The implication is clear: it uses a ton of energy and achieves almost nothing with it relative to competitive technologies.

> Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficiency to technologies like Visa which solve a totally different problem.

Yes there is, it's by dividing into kWh per transaction. You can't pretend this away because you don't like the landslide loss.

[edit] I'm sure you well know those counterarguments are meaningless because they fly in the face of math. Look this is typical of crypto folks, who know well they're melting the ice caps to enrich themselves. It's shameful, and you should feel bad for participating in this. The comparison in the domain is against, for instance proof of stake coins.

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#49

Post by shawnz »

arcticbull wrote: post #48
shawnz wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said anything about which technology was easier to kill. The question is which technology can be made more efficient while retaining its utility. The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful? I already know you believe it's not useful, but it's not up to a single individual to…

> The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful? Not talking about Bitcoin, just PoW. The implication is clear: it uses a ton of energy and achieves almost nothing with it relative to competitive technologies. > Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficienc…

I am sure you know well the counterarguments to measuring by kWh per transaction.

- The power consumption of Bitcoin has almost nothing to do with the transaction rate limit. Increasing it would have basically no impact on the power consumption. So it doesn't make sense to look at the energy usage on a per transaction basis.

- It's debatable whether there is actually a need to increase the transaction rate limit yet, whereas it's obviously necessary for Visa to process a high transaction rate right now and so it makes sense that Visa would have optimized for that already. I think even the "small blockers", who prefer the current low rate, can agree that the rate will need to be increased eventually.

Re: 'Minting' electronic cash (1999)

#50

Post by ineedasername »

ziml77 wrote: post #44
ineedasername wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin isn't quite anonymous, as a variety of criminals have found out. Cash is anonymous: there is no unique identifier associated either with the transaction or the parties to the transaction. Bitcoin on the other hand is, at best, pseudonymous. This is particularly problematic because it gives information about true identities when the owner of coins wants to spend it in any way on anything where bitcoin is not a…

And figuring out those addresses can come from finding another criminal address. By its whole design Bitcoin lets everyone see which wallets have transacted with each other.

Precisely. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but it really doesn't mesh with the common bitcoin dogma of a virtual currency free of the ability of governments to interfere with it.

There's nothing stopping governments from shutting it down either. The US by itself could practically take it down alone (or any other crypto) by banning US banks from working with it, or from working with any non-US bank that that deals with bitcoin. No need for a 51% attack, no need to track electricity usage to locate potential miners, just a simple piece of legislation. Or even simpler, an executive order issuing the same ban, stating that bitcoin enables significant financial activity by terrorists & criminals.

Post reply on HN