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

A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 839 posts

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#471

Post by root_axis »

keymone wrote: post #451
root_axis wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> banking system is idiotically expensive using much more raw energy It uses much more raw energy because it services the financial needs of most of the planet. Bitcoin dubiously services the needs of a handful. This is so obvious that I suspect you're not arguing in good faith.

Yeah, way to miss the point. Bitcoin is money where security is expressed in terms of energy. Banking system uses energy and military to achieve the same job. Do i really need to elaborate further?

I am not missing the point, you're moving the goalposts

You: "the banking system is idiotically expensive using much more raw energy"

Me: "it uses much more raw energy because it services the financial needs of most of the planet".

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#472

Post by woolvalley »

darawk wrote: post #448
keymone wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of stake may not involve energy costs directly but it has far worse consequences - costs are just shifted into political plane. Which is essentially what bitcoin was designed to avoid. You do know that idea of pos is older than PoW, yet nobody cared for it exactly because you end up with financial system run by politicians - exactly where you started.

I see people say this sometimes, and then provide no real evidence that it is at all true. PoS systems exist now, they don't have political problems to speak of any moreso than PoW coins. I see no reason to think that PoS would induce any sort of great political struggle that PoW wouldn't.

A PoS that actually matters will turn into a political game as large stakeholders play negotiation games of where the project goes next. Much like stockholder corporations today.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#473

Post by blaze33 »

SilasX wrote: post #381
good-idea wrote: post #242

I'm shocked and disheartened by how infrequently environmental concerns are brought up when discussing crypto. Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake, security, storage size - these are problems for the network and those that want to see it become a real part of our economy. (I am one of those) But the amount of energy being used to mine bitcoin is a real problem - it's not just a technical challenge (like the problems abov…

No, we don't. Bitcoin is one way to use energy. There are hundreds of thousands of other ways. When you say Bitcoin "hurts the environment", what, concretely do you mean? Presumably, you mean it in a stronger sense than "using energy to produce food hurts the environment" or "using energy to run an ER hurts the environment". That is, you think that relative to the benefit provided , the use of (harmful) energy to run…

Oh sure, buying fresh berries imported by plane from the other side of the world is no better than this bitcoin mining business! But it's not a competition to single out the worst offender.

I feel the parent comment shares this common intuition that there must be some way to design and code any crytocurrency to offer the same features without having to consume so much energy in the process.

I'm no expert on cryptocoins but we surely can agree that any hope to see them mainstream won't rely on countless power plants to brute force computational puzzles.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#474

Post by MarkSummer »

SilasX wrote: post #381
good-idea wrote: post #242

I'm shocked and disheartened by how infrequently environmental concerns are brought up when discussing crypto. Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake, security, storage size - these are problems for the network and those that want to see it become a real part of our economy. (I am one of those) But the amount of energy being used to mine bitcoin is a real problem - it's not just a technical challenge (like the problems abov…

No, we don't. Bitcoin is one way to use energy. There are hundreds of thousands of other ways. When you say Bitcoin "hurts the environment", what, concretely do you mean? Presumably, you mean it in a stronger sense than "using energy to produce food hurts the environment" or "using energy to run an ER hurts the environment". That is, you think that relative to the benefit provided , the use of (harmful) energy to run…

> When you say Bitcoin "hurts the environment", what, concretely do you mean? Presumably, you mean it in a stronger sense than "using energy to produce food hurts the environment" or "using energy to run an ER hurts the environment".

Perhaps a more direct analogy is "literally miming gold hurts the environment (since I highly doubt renewable energy is significantly leveraged in the supply chain)".

> That is, you think that relative to the benefit provided, the use of (harmful) energy to run bitcoin miners doesn't justify its environmental cost.

It makes me wonder if you couldn't somehow tie a renewable energy certificate (1) to a mined coin. I suppose green coin (2) is a similar, albeit indirect concept (i.e. value is from a unit of carbon sequestration).

1.) https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/renewable-energy-tracking-sys...

2.) https://coincheckup.com/coins/greencoin/purpose

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#475

Post by cdiddy2 »

root_axis wrote: post #352
dnautics wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typically, states control the money supply, and typically in the direction of impoverishing laborers to fill the pockets of privileged interests. Diminishing this power alone could be transformative.

Cryptocurrency doesn't cause a government to lose control of its money supply.

It doesn't, but it does bring competition to the government controlled money monopoly. Competition is generally seen as a good thing for the majority of people

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#476

Post by prostoalex »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #274
seanyesmunt wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In that sense, the coin would create an economic incentive to pollute I think if anything it creates an incentive to use renewable energy. If miners are able to pay less for power, they make more money. As the cost of renewables continue to drop, more miners will move to it.

Irrelevant. Renewable energy could be used to replace other sources, instead of peed away on this. A larger demand for energy likely means more polluting forms of energy will come back into service/stay in service to meet the demand.

Larger demand, especially backed by pre-purchase contracts, also increases incentives for large scale solar projects e.g. https://www.inverse.com/article/34239-how-many-solar-panels-...

They generally have high capex and low opex, having a strong outstanding demand by a centralized consumer willing to build a data center nearby makes the business case for a solar farm more attractive.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#477

Post by throwaway415415 »

mihaifm wrote: post #300
throwaway415415 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If no fees, what are the incentives to accept transactions in a block?

The stake in the network. Each transaction is validated by representatives whose votes are proportional to their stake in the network. An attacker would need to gain 50% of the network value to be able to do some damage.

You are not answering the question.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#478

Post by dwighttk »

orthecreedence wrote: post #466
dwighttk wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...transact without overly-censorious middle-men who take a cut while adding nearly no value. We have the internet, now. Payment networks should have died years ago. nearly no value = many more transactions per second for much less energy cost.

The "value" is the payment network itself (plus stupid things like rewards which are taken from the businesses and distributed to the consumers). However, the payment network can easily be superseded by the internet, and all that's really needed is to build a ledger on top of it (and using something like PoS it could use an amount of energy probably on par with Visa, or at least comparable to it for the same number o…

I mean, it's at least not "easily"... I'm sure in 5 or 10 years looking back it might seem easy, but looking back over the past 5 or 10 years it doesn't seem like it's easy.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#479

Post by keymone »

darawk wrote: post #448
keymone wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of stake may not involve energy costs directly but it has far worse consequences - costs are just shifted into political plane. Which is essentially what bitcoin was designed to avoid. You do know that idea of pos is older than PoW, yet nobody cared for it exactly because you end up with financial system run by politicians - exactly where you started.

I see people say this sometimes, and then provide no real evidence that it is at all true. PoS systems exist now, they don't have political problems to speak of any moreso than PoW coins. I see no reason to think that PoS would induce any sort of great political struggle that PoW wouldn't.

It’s natural way of life. If a system is subject to being controlled by political process, which PoS is unlike PoW, it will eventually be overrun by politicians. Just common sense.

Re: A faster, more efficient cryptocurrency

#480

Post by konschubert »

good-idea wrote: post #242

I'm shocked and disheartened by how infrequently environmental concerns are brought up when discussing crypto. Proof of Work vs Proof of Stake, security, storage size - these are problems for the network and those that want to see it become a real part of our economy. (I am one of those) But the amount of energy being used to mine bitcoin is a real problem - it's not just a technical challenge (like the problems abov…

The energy bill is being paid by the users and holders of the currency. It’s an expense that will make bitcoin lose against its more energy-efficient competition.

Personal plug: https://www.konstantinschubert.com/2018/11/28/proof-of-stake...

Post reply on HN