Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021 • Hacker News Board

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#421

Post by pnt12 » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 1:16 PM UTC

landemva wrote: post #279

FabHK wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is a classic tragedy of the commons situation, and that is what politics - collective action - is good at fixing (at least sometimes).

Tragedy of the commons is often due to ineffective or free pricing of government regulated items. Parks look free and become an appealing place to make homeless encampments. The free market with enforceable property rights fixes this government problem. If you don't like that people run computers to play games or wash laundry or watch videos or hash strings, re-pricing electricity fixes that. Germans are experiencing…

Arguably, not all of those consumptions are equal. I'd compare that to paying a supermarket tax because it sells alcohol and alcohol is bad for the health.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#422

Post by topranks » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 1:17 PM UTC

xiphias2 wrote: post #211

not2b wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderate inflation is good for debtors and keeps money circulating around the economy: those with savings can invest it in a way that keeps up with inflation. Deflation causes hoarding of money and economic collapse (like the Depression of the 1930s). Central banks try to manage inflation to keep is low but nonzero.

Can you explain how that Ponzi scheme works? I read parts of the source code before I invested in Bitcoin, and it looked to me like an open, honest system with easy-to-understand, clean code (unlike what Ponzi was doing, which is basically lying about customer deposits). I had doubts about elliptic curve digital signatures being safe enough to hold my money (I’m still thinking of using Lamport signatures in a multisi…

It’s a Ponzi scheme cos it’s not being used for purchasing goods and services.

Bitcoins only value is it’s value relative to dollars, euros etc, which have purchasing power.

So ultimately all the Bitcoin has to be converted back to dollars, euros etc for people to see a return on their investment. The only way to do that is to sell the Bitcoin to someone else who has dollars (presumably for more dollars than you bought the Bitcoin originally).

So as the cycle continues each new generation of investors needs to find another bunch of suckers to offload their Bitcoin to and get their dollar reward. And they need that next set of people to consistently pay a higher price than they did.

Eventually people will struggle to find buyers and be left holding the bag.

This wouldn’t necessarily be the case if Bitcoin got used as a real currency. But that’s clearly not happening at this stage, people laugh at the idea of buying Pizza with it or whatever. So it’s just a Ponzi-like scheme. Tbh it’s more like a penny stock scam of old.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#423

Post by topranks » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 1:20 PM UTC

tor12 wrote: post #246

endisneigh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation isn't a bad thing necessarily.

> Inflation isn't a bad thing necessarily. if you are already rich...

Inflation is worst for the rich with piles of cash sitting around (and it incentives them to invest which is beneficial too).

For workers it’s not a disaster if wages rise. For people with mortgages it can be great.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#424

Post by topranks » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 1:23 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #88

hsavit1 wrote: post #28

We are rapidly depleting our remaining carbon budget. Can a bitcoiner please explain to me why this is a necessary technological development right now?

"technological development". Don't we already have plenty of more efficient coins out there?

Proof-of-stake is a funny one. Means those with the most money control the money system. Might not be the best idea.

Proof-of-work is an ecological disaster though.

Cryptocurrency is not really a good idea IMO.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#425

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 1:28 PM UTC

hagbard_c wrote: post #312

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, imagine yourself in Belarus. All traditional means are under government control. How do you fund anti-Lukashemko guerrillas? Cash?

Not using any currency which depends on an internet connection anyway since that makes it rather easy for the government to deprive those rebels of their funding - just block the 'net and jam satellite-borne access methods. I'd fund my guerillas with armaments, food and medical supplies. Gold and silver maybe. No digital currencies for the stated reasons.

And how do much armaments do you have on hand and how do you plan to deliver it to your guerillas?

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#426

Post by topranks » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

ls15 wrote: post #409

otterley wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not actually happening, if you look at the amount of money invested in cryptocurrencies and their transaction volume for goods and services compared to fiat currencies.

Very few people watched videos online in 1999, but some people predicted video sites like Youtube back then already. Traditional media called them crazy. Nowadays, people are using barely anything else than the internet for watching videos.

The blockers back then were bandwidth and CPU/GPU power to watch online videos.

As soon as the technology made it practical it took off like lightning.

Bitcoin payments don’t have any such fundamental blockers. Anyone with a smartphone can send or receive Bitcoin easy. Yet acceptance of Bitcoin for payments has not taken off at all. If anything it’s declined in recent years.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#427

Post by pnt12 » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 1:33 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #174

hetspookjee wrote: post #122

Just copying another comment abotu the energy consumption of online adverising "The online advertising ecosystem resides in the core of the Internet, and it is the sole source of funding for many online services. Therefore, it is an essential factor in the analysis of the Internet's energy footprint. As a result, in 2016, online advertising consumed 20–282 TWh of energy. In the same year, the total infrastructure con…

Yes but if we start playing the “which energy use is more valid” game then quickly we realize energy is in the eye of the beholder, and the solution is a pollution tax. Bitcoin shouldn’t be outlawed anymore than video games (a totally useless tech from a society viewpoint) but HNers love their video games and Google paychecks.

I partially agree with the eye of the beholder argument. But video-games, useless? Hard disagree. How about movies, books, theater, paintings? We should not move into a soulless society that only cares about "productive" activities.

Meanwhile, crypto and PoW are cool concepts that do the same as existing applications, just slower and at an enormous cost to everyone.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#428

Post by geertj » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 1:57 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #187

geertj wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's scary is that the whole thing was designed to be unstoppable. It’s only unstoppable within the game theoretic model of crypto itself, not within the larger societal context. Once Bitcoin power consumption enters the common discourse, my guess is that politicians will step in and simply outlaw PoW systems. There is no real downside for politicians. The average voter hasn’t yet invested their life savings into…

> Once Bitcoin power consumption enters the common discourse, my guess is that politicians will step in and simply outlaw PoW systems. There is no real downside for politicians. Will we? I am not convinced. In the pandemic, many countries weren't even able to efficiently mandate masks or vaccines, despite the fact the majority supported these measures. The libertarian-anarchy minority is very loud, and will fight the…

> Will we? I am not convinced.

Not everywhere, and likely not in America. In Europe it’s not as unthinkable. Climate regulations are having real impact on people’s lives, and yet there is support for them. Spun by the right politician as a ‘free’ savings of XX megatons of carbon, outlawing PoW would be an easy sell. And with a massive bloc like Europe not participating in a certain crypto will definitely reduce the global attractiveness of that crypto.

I don’t have a crystal ball and of course I can’t say this will definitely happen. But I think it’s plausible.

Mask regulations in the parts of Europe that I’m familiar with were largely followed.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#429

Post by superkuh » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 2:47 PM UTC

djohnston wrote: post #346

superkuh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Nationstates very much want to make the proven distributed mechanisms of consensus that allows people to exchange value without their oversite illegal. No significant cryptocurrency has gone proof of stake, and certainly none just starting out. Etherium will never actually switch. Making proof of work illegal would make effective cryptocurrency illegal. The violent standing armies (and their logistics networks)…

OOC why don't you expect ETH to switch? It seems like they're moving full steam ahead.

Just like fusion energy is 20 years away, Eth is always a year or two away from switching.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#430

Post by rojeee » Mon, Jan 03, 2022, 3:35 PM UTC

captainmuon wrote: post #302

I like to think of bitcoin as solving the sybil problem via proof of work. Because if you just gave every "account" coins, then somebody could just make multiple "accounts" and get more than they are entitled to. (I know bitcoin doesn't have "accounts" but bear with me.) By it's very nature it is wasteful. Question: Has anybody tried to replace proof of work with social proof? Let every participant create their own f…

Not a crazy idea! I think this is the only decentralised system that can work long term. I’ve spent a long time thinking about it. Figuring out how to manage reputation is key, which you allude to with your comment about needing a page rank type algorithm.