731–740 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s also proof of stake which requires a lot less energy. I think a lot of nuance is missed when discussing Bitcoin and its consensus mechanism as the only way of running a blockchain
When is that rolling out for Ethereum
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the alternative is simply just using Proof of Stake and lowering the energy consumption by an estimated 99%, yes, we can be judgmental of how others use energy in this specific case. It's not Bitcoin/PoW or no cryptocurrencies at all, that's a false dichotomy, if that's what you're implying.
PoS lacks fairness. To participate in PoS, you need an existing stash of coins, which is inaccessible for many individuals from countries where cryptocurrencies are outlawed. Not forgetting to mention that participation in consensus would indirectly require going through KYC. PoW, on the other hand, is akin to buying Bitcoin with electricity - a borderless natural resource.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the alternative is simply just using Proof of Stake and lowering the energy consumption by an estimated 99%, yes, we can be judgmental of how others use energy in this specific case. It's not Bitcoin/PoW or no cryptocurrencies at all, that's a false dichotomy, if that's what you're implying.
PoS lacks fairness. To participate in PoS, you need an existing stash of coins, which is inaccessible for many individuals from countries where cryptocurrencies are outlawed. Not forgetting to mention that participation in consensus would indirectly require going through KYC. PoW, on the other hand, is akin to buying Bitcoin with electricity - a borderless natural resource.
I'm not seeing much difference in terms of accessibility. In theory PoS is easier because PoW requires actual hardware and/or more technical knowledge.
How much energy does watching porn consume? Playing video games? Watching a movie? Browsing Facebook? Using a ski chair? Visiting an amusement park? Going in vacation? Cooking your favorite type of food? Making ice cream? Driving to your friends? Listening to music? Concerts? Having a party? Banking? Casinos? As a species we use energy to meet our goals. Those goals may be situated anywhere in our hierarchy of needs.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My issue with it is even more fundamental than this: it is structurally impossible for Proof of Work to become more efficient. If you find a more energy-efficient way to mine, the correct decision is not to reduce your energy usage, but rather to use the same amount of energy to compute more hashes.
The energy-per-transaction ratio is only relevant if the utility of Bitcoin is to compete with Visa to process transactions. However, if the ultimate utility of Bitcoin is to store trillions of dollars of value, transmit it into the future, across borders, quickly, pseudonymously, and without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments, then energy-per-transaction is an inappropriate metric. Bitcoin is the…
The amount of energy used in equilibrium in Bitcoin mining is proportional to the price of Bitcoin (between halvings and holding the fraction of total mining costs spent on energy constant). If the price of Bitcoin rose enough that it had a 2TN market cap tomorrow, miners would have incentives to burn 3-4x more energy.
I agree that transaction-based accounting is flawed, but it doesn’t make the problem go away.
How much energy does watching porn consume? Playing video games? Watching a movie? Browsing Facebook? Using a ski chair? Visiting an amusement park? Going in vacation? Cooking your favorite type of food? Making ice cream? Driving to your friends? Listening to music? Concerts? Having a party? Banking? Casinos? As a species we use energy to meet our goals. Those goals may be situated anywhere in our hierarchy of needs.…
Are you actually seeing this or are you conflating criticisms of bitcoin with criticisms of bitcoin miners? Because I feel like I see a lot of the former and very little of the latter, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that this is a great big stretch to try and justify BitCoin mining. I don't know if you personally own BitCoin, but I would say that this is a prime example of motivated reasoning. > or even negative I can see no way that consuming more energy can result in an improvement to the environment (unless that energy usage was directly related to improving the environment). There is absolutely no time where you can…
> I can see no way that consuming more energy can result in an improvement to the environment (unless that energy usage was directly related to improving the environment). Literally the entire point of the comment you are responding to was to outline how bitcoin mining can help support the economic viability of renewable energy projects like wind farms.
I mean, if that were valid, wouldn't it be more environmental if we all just left the lights on 24 hours a day? Or turned on thousands of A/C units outdoors?
It's like saying my burning $1000/day of my company's money incentives the company to earn more money, so it's actually a good thing.