[HN Gopher] Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge ___________________________________________________________________ Ethereum will use around 99.95% less energy post merge Author : vishnu_ks Score : 1313 points Date : 2021-05-18 13:55 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.ethereum.org) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.ethereum.org) | randomopining wrote: | Crypto is dumb, although I will try to ride the wave. | | PoW -- wasteful electrical mining, only big entities can build | efficient asic farms. And only in low cost of electricity spots. | | PoS -- will incentive oligarchal collusion. Basically same as our | current financial system. | cblconfederate wrote: | PoW was of course a naive system but this this PoS should really | be called the "Oligarchy" because it takes us back to the past | and very visibly separates the plebs from the aristocracy. | | PoW had an implicit requirement for a global supply chain of | hardware and energy which (kind of) made political and | geopolitical games more difficult. With PoS, doing politics no | longer requires work, which could lead to geopolicical wars. For | example it might be possible to achieve wide enough consensus | among stakers in Western countries to punish China (for some | reason), e.g. willingly losing part of their stakes to empty | major Chinese wallets. The fact that this doesn't really require | physical effort but only persuasion is problematic. | | ETH will be a real test about whether PoS works, as the other PoS | cryptos are much smaller and less intertwined in other crypto | projects. Historically, oligarchies led to wars | seph-reed wrote: | I'm on the PoW side. But you should note that PoW is also | oligarchic in the sense that individuals have no ability to | compete in terms of mining. The rich get richer is still a | thing here. | | That being said, PoS is very much a human centric valuation | (rich peoples opinions being the value), so yes: politics and | then war seem likely. | | Pretty much every fiat currency has the same issues as PoS, | where eventually war becomes the cheapest way to retain value. | jude- wrote: | In PoW, the "rich" have to keep selling their coins to buy | more dedicated mining equipment in order to stay competitive. | And because PoW hasn't reached "optimum efficiency," there's | still profits to be had by building better miners and cheaper | power sources. Innovations here have positive downstream | effects, since innovations in cheap renewable power and | efficient chip fabs and designs have many applications beyond | mining. | | PoS, on the other hand, requires minimal extra work from the | already-rich. They just sit on their butts getting richer. | Taek wrote: | It's a well established result in PoW that a small constant | improvement in efficiency (say, one mining farm is 5% more | efficient than others) turns into an exponential advantage | in hashrate over time if the profits are continually re- | invested into building more hardware. | jude- wrote: | Yes, exactly. It's not a case of "rich get richer," so | much as it's a case of "capital is continuously and | irreversibly re-invested." In equilibrium, mining breaks | even. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | mining is actually worse because of economies of scale. | rich miners don't need pools so they don't pay fees, they | get bulk deals and earlier access to the newest ASICs, | they can pay personnel to optimize their operations, etc. | | so over time, the rich miners get richer at a faster rate | than poor miners. | | whereas under PoS, everyone gets the same % return | (unless you stake with a pool, but even then you don't | have these economies of scale like with mining.) | nscalf wrote: | It still doesn't change the underlying issue you discussed. | Just because there is some friction removed in PoS doesn't | mean that PoW isn't weighted to favor people with large | pools of capital to invest. | jude- wrote: | That "friction" is a feature, not a bug. The "friction" | generates second-order benefits for society. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | benefits like killing the environment. | everfree wrote: | > it might be possible to achieve wide enough consensus among | stakers in Western countries to punish China (for some reason), | e.g. willingly losing part of their stakes to empty major | Chinese wallets. | | According to Ethereum's PoS implementation, this would require | more than 33% of all staked Ethereum coordinating with modified | clients in order to pull off. Then, another percentage of the | stake adding up to 66% would have to be complicit in the | attack, rather than actively defending against it by refusing | to finalize blocks. | | Compare this to PoW, where only 51% of hashrate needs to be | participating/complicit to censor certain transactions, the | other 49% have no way of fighting back, and the only tool the | community has to fork away is to change the PoW algorithm. | | Because of this, I actually believe PoS is _more_ resistant | than PoW to these kinds of attacks. | Taek wrote: | In practice a PoS network tends to have a participation rate | of between 10% and 30%, and the 2-3 largest exchanges | collectively tend to own between 10% and 50% of the total | supply. | | And then also in practice most of the staking is performed by | a small number of outsourced staking firms, which increases | the power concentration even more. | | And it also makes hardforks more traumatic because your | economy and your consensus builders are fundamentally | intertwined. You can't fork an exchange off of the network | without also disrupting every single user that parks funds on | that exchange. The same concern doesn't exist with PoW | mining. | everfree wrote: | >You can't fork an exchange off of the network without also | disrupting every single user that parks funds on that | exchange. | | Anyone who willingly opts into staking on a shady exchange, | agreeing to a contract saying that they might be slashed, | needs to be prepared to be slashed. | | On the other hand, any exchange that automatically opts | user deposits into staking without notifying them should be | criminally liable. That's a big breach of user trust. | javitury wrote: | > On the other hand, any exchange that automatically opts | user deposits into staking without notifying them should | be criminally liable. | | One of the selling points of cryptocurrencies is that | they make financial transactions and contracts possible | without depending on a central authority. | fredfoobar wrote: | > Compare this to PoW, where only 51% of hashrate needs to be | participating/complicit to censor certain transactions, the | other 49% have no way of fighting back, and the only tool the | community has to fork away is to change the PoW algorithm. | | This is just such a small part of the whole equation. | | 1. They can't continuously attack with this, as you need to | expend energy as long as you want to continue with the | attack. | | 2. Even if you have majority hash-rate, you can't change the | rules of the system (this has already happened) | everfree wrote: | 1. Under PoW, a 51% attacker can continuously attack | profitably. All the energy they expend gets returned as | mining rewards just like normal, and they can potentially | even (up to) double their rewards if they censor the other | 49%. The only way to stop this aside from changing the PoW | algorithm is to physically locate and seize the mining | rigs. | | 2. Majority stakers can't change the rules of the system | either. | ByThyGrace wrote: | > All the energy they expend gets returned as mining | rewards just like normal | | Is that because the mined blocks themselves are still | valid (i.e. the hashes check out), regardless of the | presence of an attacker? But then how does it help the | attacker in an economical sense? Doesn't the rest of the | network know that the new 51% blocks are tainted, so to | speak? | nashashmi wrote: | I understand that proof of stake requires an incredible amount of | storage. This will make it a steep buy in. It will also raise | production of SSDs and drives. How will this shift technically | drive technology? | erjiang wrote: | You may be thinking of proof-of-SPACE cryptocurrency, where the | more hard drive space you dedicate, the more rewards you get. | | Proof of STAKE is where you dedicate your cryptocurrency and | are rewarded based on that. Since owning cryptocurrency doesn't | take any physical resource, the only expenditure is keeping | your staking node (a computer) online so that it can | participate in validation. | fredfoobar wrote: | The HN narrative engine is so biased towards ETH that some are | even asking for advice on where to buy ETH. This is ridiculous, | just think through the consequences of a PoS system, you all are | smart folks, I presume. | stingraycharles wrote: | It seems like you're insinuating that there are negative | consequences to the PoS system, but leave it up to the reader | to think really deep and understand what those consequences | are. | | I'm not well versed into PoS systems, but just took a look at | ethereum's explanation and it sounded reasonable, but I'm not | familiar with the details and trade-offs that are being made. | | Care to enlighten me what you're referring to? | fredfoobar wrote: | The negative consequences were mentioned in another comment: | | You should first get "well versed into PoS systems", The | stakers (and their adjoints) can collude and decide to reorg | the chain for a different outcome. This can be done | indefinitely at no additional cost. | | In a PoW system, you not only have to expend capex for mining | equipment, you hare further discouraged by the huge CONTINUED | opex (energy) cost. The energy required to change the state | of the chain is similar (or greater) than the energy it took | to make the first version. | fredfoobar wrote: | Not to mention the cavalier attitude towards their | tokenomics (quite literally monetary policy now), how often | they can change it. It simply doesn't inspire confidence. A | monetary layer should be immutable once a good set of rules | have been found to be working well. | | Just think about it, if a protocol layer on the internet | changes its protocol parameters based on some trends, is it | a good idea? Bitcoin is like another protocol layer on the | internet protocol stack, you build other layers on top of | the base monetary layer. You reduce the possibility of bugs | in a layer disrupting the whole ecosystem and make the | layer more maintainable. | exo762 wrote: | > The stakers (and their adjoints) can collude and decide | to reorg the chain for a different outcome. This can be | done indefinitely at no additional cost. | | No, they can't. As a part of the attack they will have to | produce a two different signatures for the same decision | (block N has hash X). This is where slashing comes in - | anyone can submit those signatures to the chain to slash | signers. | fredfoobar wrote: | Sir, this has been discussed extensively whenever it | comes up. Who will slash the slashers?? | | Just THINK about the complexity you're introducing, | you're just obfuscating the system more and more to just | avoid some loopholes, while not eliminating it either. | exo762 wrote: | > Who will slash the slashers?? | | Anyone who can produce a block with the proof inside. | Attack you are describing depends on attackers having not | 51% of the stake, but 100% of the stake. | | > while not eliminating it either. | | You would have to show this, not just claim. | stevebmark wrote: | Given that the main use of cryptocurrency is to increase fiat, | and the main reason it increases fiat is based on the | fundamentally poor design of guessing at random numbers with | increasing difficulty, I predict that if Etherium becomes more | efficient, the price will drop and interest in the coin will | implode. I'm genuinely curious if I'm wrong, why I'll be wrong. | No one cares about BCH, for example, even though it's more | efficient than BTC. | hamolton wrote: | I disagree. The initial investments in these big currencies | were from people thinking that they could become a practical | currency with real-world use due to its lack of regulation and | name-attached government tracking. The bulk of fiat driving up | the price since then has been somewhat blind speculation. None | of these change with PoS; instead, holders are now rewarded for | verifying transactions. | kaliali wrote: | Cardano already uses over 99% less energy than Ethereum and | doesn't have Ethereum gas fees... | dang wrote: | All: this thread has over 1000 comments and is paginated, so to | see all of it you need to click More at the bottom of the page, | or like this: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27194586&p=2 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27194586&p=3 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27194586&p=4 | | (Posts like this will go away once we turn off pagination.) | dalbasal wrote: | Whether or not it remains successful, ethereum is moving the ball | forward. Congratulations to contributors. Inspiring. | tphyahoo2 wrote: | https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-o... | | https://standardcrypto.wordpress.com/2021/03/31/the-censorsh... | | ETH is competing against USD, not against BTC. | | Bitcoin is competing against gold. | | Different races. different goals. | | Different risks. | zepto wrote: | > ETH is competing against USD, not against BTC. Bitcoin is | competing against gold. | | If true, this means that every argument comparing BTC to fiat | is bullshit. | | Given that most arguments I see in favor of BTC compare it to | fiat, this doesn't speak well to the understanding of those who | hold it. | | Given that BTC's value is predicated purely on the beliefs of | those who hold it, a systematic misunderstanding like this | suggests problems in store. | tphyahoo2 wrote: | https://web.archive.org/web/20210116135412/https://taaalk.co. | .. | | Bitcoin will be fine. | zepto wrote: | I stopped reading after your linked piece compared Bitcoin | to Jesus and Queen Victoria. | tphyahoo2 wrote: | To be clear, bitcoin is of course also competing against USD. | | But this is neither a fair nor an interesting competition. | | Life span of fiat currencies is usually decades. | zepto wrote: | > ETH is competing against USD, not against BTC. Bitcoin is | competing against gold. | | > To be clear, bitcoin is of course also competing against | USD | | These can't both be true. | tphyahoo2 wrote: | Yes they can. | | Eth competing against USD. Bitcoin competing against USD | and Gold. | | Bitcoin and Eth are also both competing against turkish | lira, Tide pods, and zibwawean mortgage bonds. | | But only one competes with gold. | zepto wrote: | Sorry, no. | | You said: | | > ETH is competing against USD, _not against BTC_. | Bitcoin is competing against gold | | You also said: | | > bitcoin is of course also competing against USD | | BTC and ETH can't both be competing with USD without | competing with each other. | | If your statement that BTC is competing with USD is true, | then your statement "ETH is competing against USD, _not | against BTC_ " is false. | | ETH _is_ competing against BTC. | tphyahoo2 wrote: | Technically, my py pinky fingernail is competing with our | latest nuclear powered aircraft carriers. | | Doesn't guarantee that my fingernail will win a shooting | war. | zepto wrote: | Is this meant as an analogy for ETH and BTC? | | If so, it seems like it's just a circular reference to | your personal belief in the strength of BTC over ETH, | rather than a relevant argument. | SavantIdiot wrote: | ITT: massive amounts of contradiction. This is just ridiculous: | no one seems to know how this all works, or even agree on | something that is happening right in front of us. This is a big | red flag. | | EDIT: Instead of down-voting, maybe prove me wrong? | fnord77 wrote: | currently, one single bitcoin transaction "costs" 132 kg of CO2. | DINKDINK wrote: | Paxos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos has existed for more | than 30 years. If it were easy or simple to issue a money with | distributed signing, it'd have been done before Bitcoin's | PoW<->Difficulty Adjustment<->Fixed Money Issuance novel art was | published. | | Ethereum has been "about to release PoS" for almost 6 years now | and all of the initial critiques (By issuing X units of value, | you incentivize ~<X units of energy to be expended) Summarized | here: https://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ | | If the curious reader is interested in reading more about the | scope of fraud that the ethereum protocol has fueled read the | post here: | https://web.archive.org/web/20201214170136if_/https://www.re... | | Why link to the archive.org copy and not the original? Ethereum | people got mod access to the subreddit and deleted everything | pointing out the fraud. | rossmohax wrote: | Am I right that majority of video card miners are mining Eth? | Does it mean that when merge happens, we ca expect video cards be | available to buy again? | roel_v wrote: | Maybe this is a good time and place to ask - let's say I want to | buy something using Ethereum. Is it correct that when I look at, | say, | https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_average_transaction_... , | you have to pay USD 20 just as payment fees? I wrote off Bitcoin | as a payment mechanism a long time ago because of this (although | it seems BTC tx costs are now lower than ETH?), is this the | direction tx costs for all crypto coins go? | lhl wrote: | For a basic transfer, it's probably best to use a gas tracker | like: https://etherscan.io/gastracker to check on costs. It's | about $6-8 at the moment. The average tx cost is going skew | much higher because of DeFi transactions. Uniswap V3 is | scheduled to deploy on Optimism potentially in a few weeks | which may help alleviate fee pressure (although as you can see | from the linked gas tracker, Uniswap V2 is still consuming a | large portion of txs). The bet is that a combination of L1 and | L2 improvements will bring transaction fees back to reasonable | levels in the next year or so. If it doesn't, there are a host | of new competitors like Algorand or Solana that are looking to | supplant Ethereum (and do currently provide much higher | transaction throughput and lower costs). | | In general, fees go up as the token price goes up since fees | are usually charged as a function of transaction size or | complexity, and also fees rise as a protocol hits its tx | limits, but not always. Nano is an interesting cryptocurrency | that is fee-less (although they just had to roll out an | emergency update to improve spam resistance), so it's possible | to design a fee-less system, but it's certainly even more | experimental atm. | | There are, however a number of cryptos that currently (and by | intent) have <$0.01 (sometimes significantly less) fees. This | includes (just going down by market cap): Ripple, Bitcoin Cash, | Stellar, or Dash. For transactions, even though fees are a bit | higher (about $0.06), I like Monero since it's one of the most | private and widely used cryptocurrencies out there, and it's | fees have actually significantly decreased due to technical | improvements in transaction efficiency, dynamic blocksize, and | an algorithm that can actually reduce fees as volume increases. | TheCapn wrote: | Just to put an anecdote to the question, I made a withdrawal | from my mining pool to my wallet 2 days ago and for an nearly | instant transaction it cost me ~$2USD. Higher than I'd want in | any currency, but it definitely wasn't $20USD | 55555 wrote: | Strange. I made ~5 ETH transactions a few days ago | (interacting with a smart contract) and paid ~$90 each. | Around the same time I made a few transfers, and spent about | $25 each. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Yeah gas fees have been all over the place, and smart | contract interaction can be really $$$ | Kirby64 wrote: | It's cost per transaction. Transactions can have multiple | endpoints, so the tx fee is split up between many different | users. | | If you check the incoming transaction ID I'm sure you'll see | it contained many many endpoint wallets. | | That's how mining pools offer free withdrawals periodically. | If you split it up amongst 100s of users, per user tx cost is | very low. | lawn wrote: | > I wrote off Bitcoin as a payment mechanism a long time ago | because of this (although it seems BTC tx costs are now lower | than ETH?), is this the direction tx costs for all crypto coins | go? | | No. There are developers who actually prioritize on-chain | scaling. For instance Bitcoin Cash and Monero have very cheap | fees, and they will stay cheap for the foreseeable future. | zionic wrote: | That chart is highly misleading, as it includes all smart | contracts. In ETH a basic transfer (like BTC) is often cheap | (although it needs to be even less!), however interacting with | a smart contract can be more expensive. If you want to interact | with a highly complex smart contract that pulls a lot of state | it can be 100x the cost of a basic transfer... just depends on | the code. | globular-toast wrote: | Yep. Not much, if anything, has improved since you wrote off | Bitcoin. One of the problems is nobody really cares about | having a new payment mechanism. You can explain fractional | reserve banking to people, explain how the 2008 financial | crisis happened, even give small scale advantages like sending | money overseas, and the vast majority of people just don't | care. Until people start caring, nothing will change, and | crypto will remain a zero-sum pyramid scheme. | znite wrote: | Not sure how it all works, but I assume it's broken down for a | purchase on something like Coinbase card - eg. they bundle a | load of card transactions into a ETH to fiat conversion for | Visa | | https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/trading-and-funding/ot... | freeone3000 wrote: | An entire month's worth, in fact! In practical terms, you pay | for things in fiat and then cryptocurrency is sold to cover | your credit card bill. | jimbob45 wrote: | Nobody knows whether or not cryptocoins are currencies of the | future but I'm certainly willing to let them innovate for the | next few decades figuring out if there's a path forward. | | However, I cannot abide by a money speculation mechanism which | uses as much electricity to mine worldwide as the Netherlands | use in total. That's absolutely asinine to me. | crazypython wrote: | https://mempool.space/ | | As of writing, a Bitcoin transaction costs $4.76. | | The last time I received a Bitcoin payment, it cost $0.36 in | network fees. The network is currently more congested, so the | fees are higher at the moment. | surmoi wrote: | Yes ETH gas price (transaction fee) have been very high, much | higher than BTC lately... | | Not all cryptocurrency have such insane transaction fees | though. NANO is a good example of a fee-less cryptocurrency | (cf. https://nano.org/) | mminer237 wrote: | Currently Bitcoin is $13 to Ethereum's $20. | | Ironically, that's because the value of value of Bitcoin has | plummeted compared to Ehtereum. A month ago today, an | Ethereum transaction would have cost $21 while a Bitcoin | transaction would have cost $45. | hanniabu wrote: | Ethereum transaction cost is independent of ETH price. | | Tx fee = gas * gas rate | doomroot wrote: | The important take away from this comment is that nano like | other "fee-less" cryptocurrency have little use so they're | _clever_ way to achieve these goals have not been really | tested. For example nano was recently DoSd for multiple days | because of their clever no fee solution. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | All the Nano was invented 100% the day it was made. So its | really just a shell game to pass on the worthless day 0 | tokens for more than 0 after day 0 -- just like every other | PoS coin ever. Contrast with PoW, where coins cost REAL money | every block to produce. | | It costs very little to transfer something of little value. | mminer237 wrote: | Costing money to produce doesn't make something inherently | valuable. It would be expensive to sell iPhones crushed by | previously-undriven Lamborghinis, but the product would | still be worthless. Neither NANO nor Bitcoin have any | inherent value. It's entirely derived from other people | willing to pay for it. If people want to use a | cryptocurrency, using something that doesn't require 15 GW | to power could quite rationally be more valued more highly. | leppr wrote: | I have been seeing Nano shills pop up on HN recently. This is | not the place. Please restrict your operations to Reddit, | 4chan and Facebook. Thank you. | jniedrauer wrote: | That is correct, to run an on-chain transaction is fairly | expensive. There is a lot of ongoing work to address this: | Layer 2 solutions like optimistic rollup, arbitrum, etc. | EIP-1559 itself will address this problem on layer 1. But the | ecosystem is not mature yet. If/when the scaling problem is | finally solved, the legacy financial system will change | rapidly. | hanniabu wrote: | > EIP-1559 itself will address this problem on layer 1. | | 1559 addresses fee stability and will help reduce fee spikes. | It's purpose is not to reduce fees in general. | zucker42 wrote: | $20 is a little high. ETH transactions are variable cost; more | complex transactions cost more. In order to get the price of a | simple transfer you can take the current gas price (for | example, from https://ethgasstation.info/index.php), which is | 87 right now, multiply that by 21000 (cost in gas of a | transfer) and divide that by 1 billion. So a transfer costs | 0.001827 ETH or ~$6 if you want to happen within a few minutes. | | So yes, it's currently not practical for microtransactions. | helen___keller wrote: | To directly answer your question: currently, ethereum has the | same fundamental scaling problems that bitcoin has (limited | global throughput) | | Bitcoin's attempted solution on this front is off-chain scaling | via lightning network. As far as I can ascertain, this has had | highly limited adoption. | | Eth's attempted solution on this front is sharding. I can't | claim to be an expert in this, but from my understanding after | proof-of-stake is deployed, ethereum plans to deploy something | like 64 separate "shards" which, from my understanding, are | like extra blockchains for conducting transactions, and using | some kind of complicated proof of stake system to keep it | consistent. In this case, while the main-net still has limited | global throughput, scaling up to add more side chains will | allow scaling additional throughput. You can read more here | https://ethereum.org/en/eth2/ | | As with lightning, we don't know how well this will actually | end up going until it's deployed. | everfree wrote: | Ethereum has set aside sharding temporarily to focus on PoS. | The plan to scale in the short-term is to use technology | called "rollups" which put a transaction's signature data | off-chain while keeping its data on-chain, effectively | "batching" a bunch of transactions into one. | | https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/a-rollup-centric- | ethereum-r... | cliftonk wrote: | Eth has a sidechain called Polygon with orders of magnitude | more usage than bitcoin's lightning network. There are a | number of other promising "scaling solutions" launching in | the coming weeks. Sharding is unlikely to happen in 2021. | hanniabu wrote: | > Eth's attempted solution on this front is sharding | | sharding + L2 rollups* | [deleted] | bufferoverflow wrote: | No, there are coins like Bitcoin Cash that have ridiculously | low fees and are accepted in tons of physical stores across the | world. | | BTC refuses to scale, Lightning is permanently broken. | | Ethereum will reduce the fees with sharing, but that will take | time. | f6v wrote: | > in tons of physical stores across the world. | | Compared to other crypto, or on the scale of Visa and | MasterCard? | itsdsmurrell wrote: | Is this really your question? | f6v wrote: | I mean, yeah. I've seen Bitcoin-accepting shops once or | twice in my life. But the parent claimed "there's a ton", | so I was wondering where I can find those. | x4e wrote: | People interested in POS should look at Nano [1]. | | In Ethereum only "validators" validate transactions - those with | more than 32 Eth in their own wallet. | | In Nano "representatives" validate transactions - but individual | users vote a representative to represent them (with their wallet | balance as a weighting). | | The difference is that you can have 0.00001 Nano and still have a | say over the network. It also removes the need for "stake pools" | where lots of people lend Eth to one person to make up 32 Eth | together (with the hope you will get your money back). | | [1]: https://nano.org | Siira wrote: | > you can have 0.00001 Nano and still have a say over the | network. | | Isn't that susceptible to sybil (flooding) attacks? | x4e wrote: | Your voting power is weighted by your balance, so those with | higher balances have more voting power, and the | representatives with the highest amount voted onto them have | the highest amount of control over the network. | soheil wrote: | If there was a way to verify the power source is green I think | PoW would be the ideal way to move forward. For example if | electrons generated by photoelectric cells somehow were different | than other electrons (quantum spin, parity, etc.) then maybe an | algorithm could check for that and only accept blocks mined using | these electrons and not others. | pavon wrote: | Any crypto system that has an energy problem also has an | economic problem. When a transaction requires the same amount | of electricity as an average household uses in a month, then | each transaction will cost _someone_ a full months electric | bill. That will either have to be paid with extremely high | transaction fees or "absorbed" by the value of the currency in | ways that make it unsuitable as an actual currency. | | This is true regardless of the environmental impacts of the | specific energy source, and while solar and wind are decreasing | in price, it is unlikely costs will drop so much to make this | issue negligible. | silicon2401 wrote: | Can someone give a brief summary of what Ethereum is? Is it a | crypto that will be merging with some other crypto? How does it | relate to Ethereum 2? Are they going to continue being separate | cryptos? | danlugo92 wrote: | It's like Bitcoin except it has vulnerabilities so will be | hacked (and it already has been) or taken over by the | Zuckerbergs of the world when the incentives are high enough in | the future (maybe 5 or 10 years) then it will implode. | pteraspidomorph wrote: | To quote wikipedia: | | > Ethereum is a decentralized, open-source blockchain with | smart contract functionality. Ether (ETH) is the native | cryptocurrency of the platform. It is the second-largest | cryptocurrency by market capitalization, after Bitcoin. | Ethereum is the most actively used blockchain. | | It's a blockchain whose token wasn't intended as a | cryptocurrency but as a medium for paying for having a program | ("smart contract") stored on it run on every node of the | network. In practice this can be used for all sorts of things, | including bootstrapping the vast majority of other | cryptocurrencies currently in existence, but under the current | system it can't process transactions effectively enough to be | useful in that manner. | | As I understand it Ethereum 2, which is a really long term | thing they've been doing for years, is meant to gobble up the | original Ethereum completely once all stages of deployment are | completed (any prior forks that may happen would remain | independent, I guess). | silicon2401 wrote: | thanks for the explanation. interesting read; don't really | get it, but worth looking into more. | merwanedr wrote: | Ethereum is winning every crypto/blockchain narrative. This is | super impressive and proves, once again, that real value is where | devs are. | saos wrote: | A well timed article. Glad I invested early | idlewords wrote: | One neat trick reduces cryptocurrency energy usage by 100% | oreally wrote: | Will this reduce fees? I've heard it was a big problem with eth. | IncRnd wrote: | > Ethereum will use at least 99% less energy post merge | | I realize that is the text from the article, but what they really | meant is "will use at _most_ 99% less energy ". The reduction | will be at least 99%. The future value will be at most 1% of the | current value. | bagacrap wrote: | I think that depends on whether you think "at least" modifies | the "99%" or "99% less energy" | IncRnd wrote: | Many engineers get into these language conundrums by poorly | stapling phrases and modifiers together. | luka-birsa wrote: | Fully support this, as PoW protocols - from an efficient market | perspective - consume as much as they are currently worth to | mine, which would mean that if we believe that the value of BTC | will go up (in line with past increases, for orders of magnitude) | then also the consumption of power will go up just as much. | | When BTC hits 250K per coin next year, expect 5x as much energy | consumption to what it does use today. At 1M per coin we can | expect 20x as much power consumption. | | Highly unlikely that taxation can resolve this as global economy | simply forces the miners to places where energy is cheap and | abundant. And countries will view this as a competitive advantage | as now there is a simple way to convert power directly into | money. Many cases have shown that poor countries will use their | environment to gain an upper hand and pull their country out of | poverty. Sadly the impact to the environment is global. | exo762 wrote: | PoW also implies large inflation, which pays for the security | of the network. With PoS you can reduce issuance greatly, while | staying safe. | fredfoobar wrote: | Consider not rabbitholing into a narrative and understanding | reality: | | https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-uses-less-than-... | aloer wrote: | Bit of a weird argument they make there. Banking keeps the | world spinning. | | What does bitcoin do, right now, to make this even remotely | comparable? | fredfoobar wrote: | Why is there such a strong status-quo bias among people I | thought were technologists, and what do you guys defend? | the banking system?? really? | | Do you all remember the energy FUD that the internet got | back in the late 90s [1]? | | Please! lets not sleepwalk into another PoS system on the | internet to replace the previous one. | | [1] https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0531/6311070a.html?s | h=3e2... | aloer wrote: | It wasn't my intention to defend the banking system. But | since you posted an article where Bitcoin is compared to | this banking system I'd say it's just fair to question | whether they can actually be compared. | | So, can they? | | What's the current transactions per day? How low can | bitcoin energy consumption realistically go compared to | where it is now? | fredfoobar wrote: | No, that wasn't my gripe. Bitcoin is a decentralized | technological solution that almost completely replaces | the banking system, I'd prefer that over the current | Banking system, and bitcoin is global to boot. | | Transaction per day -> it can do as many as you want. I | run a lightning node and I've shown a lot of people how | quick and cheap the transactions can be, and also how | EASY it is to get setup to transact in bitcoin over | lightning. | xur17 wrote: | This. Every single article and discussion about this | "problem" always uses base chain transactions as the | divisor for the energy cost per transaction. The average | Bitcoin transaction [0] is ~$500k right now. The protocol | made a conscious decision to make layer 1 a settlement | layer, and secondary layers as transaction layers. I | personally make an order of magnitude more transactions | on layer 2 than I do on layer 1. The company I work for | fits into the same boat, and the vast vast majority of | funds we receive are on a layer 2. | | [0] https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/charts/average- | transaction-am... | nwah1 wrote: | This article obscures the truth, which will be obvious soon, that | Ethereum will remain multiple orders of magnitude less efficient | than traditional banks. | exo762 wrote: | > Ethereum will remain multiple orders of magnitude less | efficient than traditional banks. | | As a payment network? Layer 2 solutions will be in production | by the end of this summer which will enable payments that costs | 3 cents, regardless of demand or amount transferred. Working | alongside with smart contracts. Lookup zkSync 2.0 / zkPorter. | xutopia wrote: | So... how much money will someone make from mining post merge? | Will people be able to make money? | micropresident wrote: | People seem to forget that this energy use is a consequence of | miners wanting coins because of the subjective _value of the | reward._ Even stakers can expend more money for a better chance | at receiving the eth2 staking rewards. This will result in just | as much energy use for a given reward value as Bitcoin. The | question is if you can account for it. Eth2 propagandists are | being very -- unintentionally -- dishonest about this. | | Energy use will always meet demand for coins. This is true _even_ | in USD. Bitcoin is actually more efficient than existing | financial systems. Bitcoin removes all the labor and expense that | goes into running ATMs, Bank buildings, tellers, and so forth. | Eth also does this. | | The real way to address energy use is to introduce seignorage | into the system. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seigniorage) in | order to do this, you must give some of the new issuance to | people who are not part of the system of validation. | | Eth2 might work for awhile, and it might make people rich as | people put up more and more stake in order to obtain rewards. | (The block reward is effectively a risk-free rate of return). | However, long term, you end up with a larger and larger | percentage of the economy controlled by very few people. | | Systems like this dis-incentivize the creation of real value | through investment in real-world goods and services. Long term, | people will opt out of this nonsense as it produce coins which | are not useful in _real_ business transactions due to the | deflationary nature of the tokens. | exo762 wrote: | > Even stakers can expend more money for a better chance at | receiving the eth2 staking rewards. This will result in just as | much energy use for a given reward value as Bitcoin. | | I think you are wrong. Staker pays in "time-cost of money", | which is proportional to the stake size and in energy cost, | which is pretty much constant (few watts). Your argument | implies that there will be greater amount of stakers. That | would be plausible if not for 32ETH minimal stake. | endisneigh wrote: | > Energy use will always meet demand for coins. This is true | even in USD. Bitcoin is actually more efficient than existing | financial systems. Bitcoin removes all the labor and expense | that goes into running ATMs, Bank buildings, tellers, and so | forth. Eth also does this. | | How can you say this in good faith when BTC doesn't do the same | things existing financial systems do? | ChrisClark wrote: | Your entire argument is base on the fact that more people mine | because when the rewards are better, higher price. | | But in PoS there is no mining. More and more people will stake, | but will do so with a small single VM, with no GPUs or ASICS | mining and using power. | | So a PoS system will never ever use as much energy as BTC | mining, by many many orders of magnitude. | csomar wrote: | I might be jumping the shark here, but I think the Ethereum | "elite community" are probably going to get into a situation of | "be careful what you wish for". | | There is a reason why most of mining is happening in China, Iran, | Libya and other "poor" countries. These countries have big | players in mining but not in trading/legislation (except for | China). | | By creating a PoW crypto, you are able to do something really | cool: You can move value (energy) out of a country, without | having a connection with any institution either inside or | outside. This happens in a permission-less, indirect manner. | sigmar wrote: | I feel like ETH is in very good footing to move to Proof of Space | (decentralized network, good dev work, lots of distributed | stake), especially in comparison to other projects that have gone | with PoS. I'm sure it'll succeed in many ways, but I can't | imagine moving away from Nakamoto consensus is going to be "the | solution" generally for how to create a working, scalable, well | distributed currency. | mrfusion wrote: | Any easy to follow tutorials on how this Pos system will work? | stickac wrote: | It will also make it 99.95% less resistant to censorship. | everfree wrote: | Ethereum's PoS design is censorship-proof up to 33% and | censorship-resistant up to 66% of staked Ether. Compare to | PoW's 51% and you'll see that they're somewhat comparable. | lucasnortj wrote: | who cares, cryptos have no use case except for cranks and | criminals and noone has ever improved a solution by adding a | blockchain to it. | Croftengea wrote: | The title suggests PoS for ETH is 100x more efficient than PoW | whereas the article actually estimates PoW to be 2000x more | efficient. | lucideer wrote: | To clarify further: the HN title says 100x whereas the article | title says 2000x | | Update: it's been fixed | mkl95 wrote: | I have fond memories of Solidity. Not the prettiest language but | I built some fun toy projects ("sports prediction" AKA gambling) | with it circa 2017/18. However the whole energy thing discouraged | me from building anything bigger. I may give it a shot after this | merge. | truth_seeker wrote: | Can someone point out what exactly changed at low level code to | achieve this optimization in energy consumption or they altered | the algorithm altogether ? | jude- wrote: | Your post advocates a | | (X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante | | approach to solving the double-spend problem in a decentralized | cryptocurrency. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't | work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular | idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state | to state before a bad federal law was passed.) | | (X) Scammers can easily use it to defraud users | | (X) Smart contracts and other legitimate cryptocurrency uses | would be affected | | ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money | | (X) It is defenseless against network-level attacks | | ( ) It will stop scams for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with | it | | ( ) Users of cryptocurrencies will not put up with it | | ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it | | (X) The police will not put up with it | | (X) Requires too much cooperation from exchanges | | ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once | | ( ) Many cryptocurrency users cannot afford to lose business or | alienate potential employers | | ( ) Scammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists | | (X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or | business | | (X) Replicated state machines do not scale | | Specifically, your plan fails to account for | | ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it | | ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for cryptocurrencies | | ( ) Open relays in foreign countries | | ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all | private keys | | (X) Asshats | | ( ) Jurisdictional problems | | (X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes | | (X) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money | | (X) Huge existing software investment in PoW | | (X) Huge existing software investment in composable smart | contracts | | (X) Susceptibility of protocols other than PoW to cheap fork | creation | | (X) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email | | (X) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes | | (X) Eternal arms race involved in all network-healing approaches | | (X) Extreme profitability of scams | | ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft | | (X) Technically illiterate politicians | | (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with | scammers | | ( ) Dishonesty on the part of scammers themselves | | (X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering | | (X) Bitcoin already exists | | (X) Error states that require manual intervention to fix | | and the following philosophical objections may also apply: | | (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none | have ever been shown practical | | ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable | | ( ) Block headers should not be the subject of legislation | | ( ) Blacklists suck | | ( ) Whitelists suck | | ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card | fraud | | (X) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public | networks | | (X) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually | | ( ) Sending transactions should be free | | (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? | | ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses | | (X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem | | ( ) Temporary/one-time addresses are cumbersome | | ( ) I don't want the government reading my cryptocurrency | transactions | | ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough | | (X) The rich should not get richer | | (X) Money and finance are legal constructs, and should not be | replaced by undemocratic systems | | Furthermore, this is what I think about you: | | (X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. | | ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for | suggesting it. | | ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and | burn your house down! | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | I love this! I know the original text, did you write this | variant? | jude- wrote: | Ha, yeah, I based it on Cory Doctorow's anti-spam form: | https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt | [deleted] | michael_vo wrote: | What are the attack vectors on PoS. With PoW you need 51% of the | mining power to take over the system, which is very labor | intensive to set up. | | With PoS could you take over all coins by buying 51% of the | existing coins? So if the market cap of ETH is 200BB spend 100BB | to double your money? | caballeto wrote: | Once the attack goal is achieved the Ethereum value will go to | zero. It does not make sense to do this by buying coins, but | potentially hackers could get control of such big amount of | coins by hacking exchanges, thus bringing whole system to | collapse. Similar scenario as in Mr. Robot. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | ETC has been 51% attacked 4 times and it's still the 17th | largest cryptocurrency. | | https://www.coindesk.com/crypto-51-attacks-etc | | Furthermore it's become pretty clear from the many attacks on | value tokens in Etherum & BSC DeFi that the attacker can move | faster that the market and drain any liquidity | pools/exchanges that have open offers into something that | isn't going to collapse. | | The theory early on was that the coin cratering b/c of an | attack would be an extra deterrent, but the price of coins | that have been successfully 51% attacked says otherwise. | | Here's another cryptocurrency in the top 100 that has | suffered many 51% attacks. | | https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-gold-blockchain- | hit-b... | hanniabu wrote: | ETC is PoW, it's a different dynamic than PoS which was the | topic of discussion | andrewla wrote: | If I understand the post you are replying to correctly, | the point is that being successfully attacked does not | necessarily destroy the value of the coin. | | Sometimes people argue that a nation state could "shut | down" bitcoin for some amount of money -- say $10B. With | that, they could buy enough mining equipment to publish | empty blocks and throttle the ability to send | transactions. | | Part of my skepticism of this idea is that the bitcoin | network is already so throttled but it does not seem to | affect the value of the coin negatively. What would be | hilarious would be if France decided to shut down | Bitcoin, and succeeded, but the value of bitcoin then | proceeded to increase 100x. | [deleted] | seph-reed wrote: | The attack vectors on PoS are less logical than those of PoW. | | With PoW, it's all just physics, energy, and math. With PoS | it's rich peoples opinions and validation. An attack on PoS | will likely be political... and politics tend to slip into war | if there's not enough adults in the room. | derivagral wrote: | Tail risk as I understand it is going to be fun. If your staked | nodes lose connectivity (or your pool's) the network can | penalize them by slashing the ETH and the stake, right? So | after everyone centralizes on a few nodes in the main | providers, aren't bad actors heavily incentivized to attack | common infra to remove $/power/currency/voting from others and | thus shrink the chain? | | I don't think the network can figure out an "oops, AWS or | Comcast went out; my nodes at home or in the cloud shouldn't | get slashed" vs "lets sabotage an ISP or network for enough | time to trigger penalties and repeat it". | exo762 wrote: | You are on point. The solution is (and people do it today) | don't run backup nodes, or you will risk getting slashed. | Your penalty for missing your vote is very mild - basically | not earning the reward for the round. | eyezick wrote: | Yup and accordingly PoS devs have explicitly stated this | incentivizes stakers to be spread out, and not only on | infrastructure but software, as there are multiple client | implementations. | jerf wrote: | In addition to the replies, bear in mind that market cap is a | bit of a fiction. If you go on a crazy buying spree to take | over the network, you'll raise the price of each token in the | price due to your own rising demand. It would be a lot more | than $100B. | eventreduce1 wrote: | Yes and no. If you spend 100BB to buy 51% and then take over | the network, eth will have zero value and you loosed 100BB. | lasagnaphil wrote: | Worse, if the overall Ethereum community reaches a consensus | that a malicious entity attempted to take over the network, | then the devs will fork the blockchain to rollback the | particular transactions with the malicious entity, and the | new blockchain will keep chugging along as normal while the | attacker has just lost a shitton of dollars to buy 100BB. | (This is similar to what happened with the DAO previously, | although the reason for it was bugs rather than a 51% attack) | hanniabu wrote: | This is not what happened with the DAO. This is well | documented and I suggest you read up on. TLDR, the hacker | tried to withdraw the funds and there was a 30 day lockup | period so the contract was updated to stop this. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | There have been multiple examples of 51% attacks happening | and the cryptocurrency it happened to not going to zero. | | Etherum classic and Bitcoin gold come to mind. They are both | in the top 100 still, and both have been 51% attack multiple | times. | throw1234651234 wrote: | You don't double your money - at that point the network is | compromised and nobody wants your coins. It's a guaranteed way | to destroy Ethereum's value, but the only incentive to do it is | to troll. Not too many entities globally looking to spend that | much for a laugh, even if they could get the necessary funds in | liquid form AND manage not to drive up price with their buy | orders. | michael_vo wrote: | Perhaps state actors who can print free money would be | interested in performing these attacks. Say if a coin was | owned predominantly by citizens of one country or if the | countries' infrastructure was running on ETH technologies. | | Like suppose the banking system was running on ETH. Or if | Colonial Pipelines used ETH. | throw1234651234 wrote: | I can elaborate on any point if interested, but this is | covered in the parent. | | 1. They would drive the price up way past market price in | an attempt to make such a large purchase. The cost of a | large, rapid purchase is far, far from market price. Only a | fraction of the market is willing to sell at current price. | | 2. If a country wanted to run on Ethereum, they could clone | it, since they are giving up the benefits of a GLOBAL | system when they take it over. | | Lmk if you have any questions. Pretty interesting topic | given the insane ETH valuation atm, in contrast to, say, | Algorand. Network and first move effects, I guess. | dodobirdlord wrote: | The etherium developers and community have made relatively | clear that if someone were to attempt such a thing, the | non-malicious members of the community would just fork at | the direction of the developers to a chain that is | identical except that all of the etherium staked by the | attacker is redistributed among the non-malicious verifying | nodes, as it would be once the consensus process concluded | that an attack was being carried out in a <51% attack | scenario. | unique_username wrote: | Most of these PoS protocols use pBFT consensus (instead of | nakamoto consensus) which means it would only require 1/3 | instead of 1/2 | andrewla wrote: | It's even easier than that -- all you have to do is get a stake | and then brute force mine for an alternate reality where your | stake is the sole decision maker for the DAG. | | You can't really double-spend that way, but you can get a | disproportionate amount of the shard rewards. In order to | defend against this, other participants will also have to mine | for a "more fair" alternate reality, so you end up getting a | standstill where nobody can get economic advantage as long as | the total power being devoted to preventing chain-shopping is | greater than the amount spent on chain-shopping. | | In the end the energy expenditure would likely be unchanged | from the status quo, it would just be hidden behind a facade of | inexpensive proof-of-stake validations that conceal the actual | work being done to ensure that this is not abused. This way | everyone can feel warm and fuzzy because there's no actual way | to measure how much work is being done to keep the validation | from being monopolized. | Athas wrote: | Presumably, if someone took that kind of control over Ethereum, | its value would rapidly become zero. | vmception wrote: | In practice, different people have utility in the network | | In most double spent networks, people clamor for the coins so | they can have the chance at double spending | | In PoW networks that's combined with renting/deploying hash | power | | In PoS networks its just taking over validators | | Big ole party! | [deleted] | crazypython wrote: | You can DDoS normal, non-validating nodes, and if they go | offline, they can be unsure which chain is the true chain, | because they were not around.. This means your laptop can never | sleep, unlike in Bitcoin, where full nodes may go offline and | catch up later. | | People who control stake can refuse to include (censor) | transactions, as there is no market competition for transaction | inclusion like in PoW. In PoW, if 51% of network power is | censoring transactions, then censored transactions can attach a | higher fee, which competing miners will use to buy more | equipment and mine the censored transactions. | | These are the ones I know about, that I learned in an evening | of research. | exo762 wrote: | This is false. At least false for Ethereum's hybrid PoS. | | It uses Verifiable Delay Function as an element of random | number generation process. One can look into number of rounds | of VDF and treat them just the way they treat proof of work | today. It can be compared to determine which chain is the | longer one. | jude- wrote: | How long till we have a VDF ASIC that lets block producers | fuck with this? | crazypython wrote: | Chia Coin is working on a VDF ASIC so that they can | correct for it in advance (essentially selling it at a | loss so everyone can own the best VDF) but I'm not sure | it's the same VDF as Ether. | KptMarchewa wrote: | >So if the market cap of ETH is 200BB spend 100BB to double | your money? | | No one would buy those from you, so at best you can burn money | to burn other people's money at a premium. | Ericson2314 wrote: | The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldfinger_(film) strategy, | way less efficiently. | rmhsilva wrote: | Zack (of https://amoveo.io) has a good write up of some attacks | here: https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo- | docs/blob/master//oth.... | kipchak wrote: | The market cap will also increase as you buy loads of coins. | For example if I went on coinbase pro, there are people willing | to sell up to 50,000 ETH at a maximum price of $6,000, or a | total cost of $220,000 million. Of course Coinbase isn't the | only market, but if it was and I bought that 220,000 million | dollars of ETH the market cap would now be around 700B, at | least temporarily. | | My guess would be at some point people would realize a takeover | was occurring and panic, but it seems like a 51% buyout would | require an ungodly amount of money and time. | Consultant32452 wrote: | It seems like a state actor could do it without much trouble. | One important factor is a state actor doesn't necessarily | have the profit motive. They could just desire to destroy the | ecosystem. | crazypython wrote: | You don't need to buy, you can just get a coalition of people | who already own 51% and ask them to do the attack. | sp332 wrote: | You have to find some people willing to sell you that much ETH. | Market depth around the current price is obviously not _that_ | deep and it would at least cost way more if you could even find | that much for sale anywhere. | Geee wrote: | You don't have to buy them, you can borrow them. This opens up | a certain type of attack where you promise to pay interest to | get control of the stake. If you're running a stake pool, you | can pay interest on top of the stake reward. It's possible to | run a staking yield farm, where you pay interest in a different | cryptocurrency that you can mint yourself. | | These kinds of off-network incentives can disrupt the reward | system. It's even possible to incentivize a lot of people to | collude in a double spend attack if the rewards can be | distributed to the participants. | DennisP wrote: | True, but a double-spend attack would destroy the stake of | all the participants. | leishman wrote: | Proof of Stake is already how our current financial system works. | The people with the most money make the decisions. Proof-of-Work | is provably resistant to this, as evidenced by the 2017 blocksize | debate where almost every large miner and bitcoin company wanted | to change the protocol and it was fought off through grassroots | efforts. A PoS currency will be controlled by a cabal of US | financial institutions, and indirectly by the US regulatory | system. Be careful what you wish for. | roelb wrote: | Proof of work is no different in this regard: more capital, | more mining power, more control. Miners interests don't always | align with the network's users interests (see gas fees). Proof | of work isn't more decentralized either (a few mining pool | delegators control bitcoin), eth2 proof of stake is more secure | because of the pseudorandom validator selection. | leishman wrote: | It is very different: The difference is that PoW is | censorship resistant. Anybody can be a miner and existing | miners cannot censor new miners. Performing new work is | external to the network state. In PoS, existing stakers can | prevent new stakers from registering. Very important | distinction. | zionic wrote: | > Anybody can be a miner | | This is patently false, endgame PoW centralizes mining | around 3rd world coal/cheapest possible (stolen?) | electricity. The overwhelming majority of the world has | been priced out of BTC mining, not that they could get | ahold of an ASIC anyways. | throw1234000 wrote: | Anybody can be a miner the same way anybody can participate | in the race for Mars. | | But that doesn't mean your bottle rocket will beat SpaceX | there. | randomhodler84 wrote: | Sure. And analogous to PoS is some kind of galactic | requirement that you pay some kind of space bond in order | to go to space. Mess around and your space bond is | slashed. I like the bottlerocket model better. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | Yeah sure, let me just buy a container full of ASICs worth | hundreds of thousands of $$$ and I'll start mining: | https://twitter.com/SGBarbour/status/1390504269925654532 | andy_ppp wrote: | Can't the people with most money buy the most computer power? | leishman wrote: | Yes, but they then need to maintain that edge by selling | their Bitcoin and buying more computer power. They have | constantly growing operating expenses and there is no force | that centralizes control. PoS playbook is 1) get a stake, 2) | set it and forget it. | andy_ppp wrote: | Well I guess we'll see if you're right... | troyvit wrote: | Eh, I gotta say that no matter the system, speculators are | gonna speculate and power hungry idiots will do everything they | can to control a currency. That's fine, and human, and | expected. Just please try not to melt all the ice caps while | ya'll have at it. | armandillo wrote: | Proof of work is currently controlled by 3 companies in terms | of hashpower and 1 in terms of hardware - Bitmain. | | So, the absolute worst case for PoS is already pretty much the | case for PoW. | Rapzid wrote: | Smallish groups of consolidated power already control the | future of the crypto currencies; see the migration to PoS. | | Crypto has made very little(perhaps zero) progress toward any | solution in decentralizing power. | reedjosh wrote: | At least with privacy coins censoring transactions shouldn't | be possible. | | Also with Monero anyone can cpu mine it, and transaction | participants are obfuscated. | | With ARRR, miners don't know the identity of transaction | participants. | x4e wrote: | POW just gives the power to whoever can purchase the most | computing power. It also gives control of the network to those | directly benefiting from high fees. | | At least POS gives the power to those that actually have an | interest and stake in the currency itself. | leishman wrote: | PoS will be controlled by US-based custodians, which | certainly have a tremendous incentive to siphon as much value | from the currency as possible. | | PoW has a much more diversified set of actors with competing | interests, which makes it much more difficult to change the | rules. This is a feature not a bug. | yourabstraction wrote: | Yeah, I'm a big ETH holder, but this is honestly what | worries me about the POS merge. I think the fact that | Bitcoin miners have to sell to fund their operations is a | nice feature and keeps them in a separate class from the | custodians. Economic incentives that merge validators with | custodians could create a feedback loop that concentrates | too much power in the wrong places. That being said, ETH | has a thriving DeFi ecosystem and a ton of smart people | working on it, so I'm not betting against it. | incrudible wrote: | > PoS will be controlled by US-based custodians... | | You might as well claim that the Chinese Communist Party | controls Bitcoin. Not _entirely_ wrong, but misleading. | leishman wrote: | No it's very different. Bitcoin consensus is achieved | through a combination of mining actors and economic | actors. PoS collapses this into a single group: | custodians. | incrudible wrote: | Bitcoin consensus is achieved through miner majority, end | of story. Any other narrative is pure make-belief. | grubles wrote: | Nodes enforce the ruleset that miners must abide by, and | can invalidate new blocks that miners generate. You can | see examples of this in history e.g. bitcoin.com mining a | block with a greater block size than consensus allowed, | which caused the block to be invalidated and the cost of | energy wasted. | incrudible wrote: | What are nodes going to do if nobody wants to mine | _their_ preferred blocks? Somebody has to mine them, and | they 'll need a lot of hashrate to do so. | yaa_minu wrote: | Yes, in pow systems, miners can only ddos the network and | they can do nothing more. | themagician wrote: | Those who got that stake by purchasing massive compute power. | | PoS just solidifies current stakeholders so that they no | longer have to worry about competition from new players. | conradev wrote: | Is that actually the case? Couldn't a new player with the | money to spend become a stakeholder overnight by purchasing | large amounts of ETH on the open market and staking it? | | Versus taking that money and taking months to invest it | into mining. Purchasing compute power is harder than | purchasing ETH no matter how you slice it | themagician wrote: | In theory. Which is what the current stakeholders want. | That was the value offer to do this in the first place. | | Either way, you end up with a currency that is far more | centralized than most stable paper currencies. The number | of large stakeholders in Etherum is probably measured in | the thousands. PoS will just further consolidate the | stakeholders over time. | | Ethereum isn't even reasonably transactable anymore. A | single transaction costs like $40. As an actual currency, | it died the same fate that Bitcoin did. | | Too few people hold too many coins, and then they make | rules that only benefit increasing the price. | DSingularity wrote: | No way dude. Our current system isn't even close to PoS. Most | obviously the federal reserve controls the monetary policy. | Beyond that there is no "code is law" that we can all audit and | fork if we find it inadequate. If ethereum centralized you can | amend the protocol and fork the blockchain. Show me how you can | do that with USD. | lumost wrote: | The main value of cryptocurrencies is a provable ledger with an | open API. PoS sufficiently establishes that for all economic | purposes save for those wishing to make themselves feudal | lords. | | Currently your money is transmitted by csv copies across | thousands of companies, most of whom use a semi-manual process. | Moving this type of transaction to a distributed ledger will | save financial institutions billions in audit costs. | lawn wrote: | > almost every large miner and bitcoin company wanted to change | the protocol | | If the miners really wanted to change the protocol, they would | have done that. The exchanges would have followed, as they had | declared that the longest chain would win, and that would be | game over. | | Instead the miners gave in to the perceived authority of the | Core developers, who pinky promised to later raise the block | size (which they backed away from). | Taek wrote: | The exchanges have no reason not to support both sides of a | fork, for example the BTC/BCH split. Then the owners of the | tokens ultimately decide which one is more valuable by | selling their tokens on the chain they don't prefer and | buying tokens on the chain they do prefer. | lawn wrote: | There is a very clear bias if one chain keeps the ticker, | and therefore the price, so much that in practice exchanges | exchanges can decide which chain "is the original one". | rcxdude wrote: | This. There's a bunch of waffling above about how the | miners vs stakers will control stuff and so on, but in | reality it's the markets which define which gets used. | That's what decided the block size debate, not users | spinning up nodes or miners pushing in one direction in | ther other. Miners follow the market, and so will those | running validators on proof of stake. Those who can | influence the market have the most power here (and usually | that's vocal members of the community or developers). | s7atic wrote: | Why do you believe a global PoS currency will be controlled by | US actors? The US has a 10--20% share of global GDP. | | Regardless, history has proven that the most legitimate branch | of a blockchain wins, irrespective of security model. It will | not be the actor with the most hash power or stake. For | reference, see the Justin Sun/STEEM drama. | | Vitalik Buterin has an interesting blog post on legitimacy: | https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html. | leishman wrote: | Because they're all largely funded by U.S. based VC funds. | simias wrote: | It's not like cryptocurrencies achieved any of their goals so | far anyway. If it's about facilitating pyramid schemes and | creating a worldwide casino we might as well do it efficiently | and without wasting insane amounts of resources. | | I'm personally very happy for PoS and hope that it'll be | successful, I would be a lot less annoyed with cryptocurrency | bullshit if it wasn't so wasteful. With proof-of-stakes it | basically joins the ranks of essential oils and other MLM | scams, I'm fine with that. | pkdpic_y9k wrote: | But like, what were cryptocurrency's goals again? | miohtama wrote: | The goals can be technological, cultural and macroeconomic | ones. I had a presentation recently on this topic: | | https://capitalgram.com/posts/history-of-cryptocurrencies/ | mhluongo wrote: | Originally? Freedom. | notJim wrote: | I can't find it right now, but I saw this infographic the | other day showing how the ideology/goals of cryptocurrency | have shifted over time. Something along going from a | literal currency to replace the dollar to going toward its | present definition as some mix of speculative asset and | inflation hedge. | skohan wrote: | the funny thing is that cryptocurrency _was_ fairly | useful as a currency in 2014. There were a number of | bitcoin ATMs in my city, and a number of businesses where | you could spend it. It seems to me that the whole block- | size debate proved the failure of the system, since the | interests of a few ultimately triumphed over the best | interests of the system as a whole. | webXL wrote: | > since the interests of a few ultimately triumphed over | the best interests of the system as a whole | | Is it in the best interests of "the system" (interesting | choice of words... instead of "the many") to require | enterprise infrastructure in order to run a node? | skohan wrote: | Bitcoin used to be a currency, now it's nothing more than | a speculative asset. Are "the many" being served by that? | atweiden wrote: | Are "the many" being served by USD inflation rn? | | And can you name a cryptocurrency which is anything other | than a speculative store of value, and not something | whose market cap is based on drum beating over social | media? | skohan wrote: | > Are "the many" being served by USD inflation rn? | | That's a nice false equivalency, but I can go to the | store and buy bread with USD. Where can I do that with | cryptocurrency? | | > And can you name a cryptocurrency which is anything | other than a speculative store of value, and not | something whose market cap is based on drum beating over | social media? | | Yes! Bitcoin circa 2014 | imtringued wrote: | If those are the sacrifices you have to make then it | failed completely. | Yizahi wrote: | Originally anarchist anti-government folks needed some | medium of exchange for their future plans and bitcoins | could theoretically fill that niche, being trustless. We | could argue that anarchy ideology is not good, but at least | it was some ideology and tool fit the purpose. Now crypto | is 99.99% occupied by get-rich-quick folks with zero | principles. | jollybean wrote: | And possibly those ideological people were also get-rich- | quick people as well. | sudosysgen wrote: | Not anarchists, ancaps and right libertarians. | | Crypto-currency has inbuilt hierarchy, as people with | more hashrate have proportional power over the monetary | system. This is more hierarchy than an elected chairman | of the fed, for example. | billti wrote: | Serious questions... I genuinely don't know... but I | assume a country could block access to the "blockchain" | of any crypto currency, just like some of them do with | access to Twitter, Google, Facebook, Github, etc. | | Is there way to continue using your Bitcoin in this case? | Or is it effectively the same as having a bank account | frozen (i.e. you can't conduct any transactions if you | don't have broad connectivity). | | Or am I misunderstanding something fundamental? (I | realize it's probably not a single domain/endpoint like | other sites I referenced, but the traffic probably has | other characteristics that would make it easy for a state | to disable). | sokoloff wrote: | Block live access? Maybe. | | Block access entirely? Only if they were willing to stop | all communications and travel in/out of the country. You | could carry keys on paper and instructions in your head | and apply them on the "free side" of the border. I don't | think it's practically possible to entirely prevent such | transactions. You can make them illegal; you can make | them difficult; you probably can't stop them as an | individual country. | wmf wrote: | You can receive the blockchain via satellite and send | transactions over email, Signal, or whatever. | https://blockstream.com/satellite/ | | Or you could just use Tor. | sudosysgen wrote: | The only way to completely block access to the block | chain thats remotely feasible are repeated 51% attacks | and an impediment to general access. | | That means raiding mining farms while limiting their | number by limiting the size of Bitcoin. | | Its only something the US or China could do. | | Otherwise no, there is no way of completely blocking it. | There are ways of making it impractical for the vast | majority, though. | rafaelero wrote: | > Crypto-currency has inbuilt hierarchy, as people with | more hashrate have proportional power over the monetary | system. | | If this is the case, please illuminate us why they don't | use their influence to increase block size or block | rewards. | sudosysgen wrote: | It's very simple. The price of Bitcoin converges towards | the price of mining it. Making mining bitcoin easier will | only lower its price in the long run. So increasing block | size will only increase the amount of hashrate in the | system and thus the profit per dollar invested will not | change that much. | | Given this information, is it worth rocking the boat | while mining is still very profitable? No. | thekyle wrote: | > The price of Bitcoin converges towards the price of | mining it. | | Isn't it the opposite. The cost of mining converges | towards the current price of Bitcoin. Because when miners | get Bitcoin as a reward they immediately sell it for | profit. | sudosysgen wrote: | Well, yes, you could see it that way. | orblivion wrote: | FWIW I think some "left-wing market anarchists" like it | as well. Further left probably not but they also just | don't like markets. | sudosysgen wrote: | Which ones? I know a lot of them and they really don't | like it. IME left wing market anarchists that are | moderate enough to allow an exploitative hierarchy like | bitcoin are also moderate enough to allow fiat currencies | that are more democratic, and those that are radical | enough also won't like bitcoin's hierarchy. | exo762 wrote: | The idea that anarchists reject all hierarchies is | baseless. | mattkevan wrote: | Just hierarchies that don't contain themselves at the | top. | sudosysgen wrote: | They don't reject all hierarchies. They seek to minimize | them and eliminate unjustified hierarchy. | | Trading democratic control for oligarchical control is | increasing hierarchy and there's no obvious benefit. | | The core of anarchy is reticence towards hierarchy. | nathias wrote: | magic internet money | | btw, it is a success. | | If not for crypto two companies would have a global | monopoly on online transactions and able to banish you from | global economy on a whim | briankelly wrote: | The original Bitcoin paper was published late 2008 and much | of its original momentum was a direct response to the clear | failures of the financial institutions at the time. | iso1631 wrote: | Make it easier to pay ransom demands when you have malware | attack you. Used to have to have a pile of cash dumped in a | given area, high risk for the collector. Far easier now. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Monero is closest to the original cryptocurrency dream: | decentralized and private currency. It's most definitely not | "bullshit". | jereees wrote: | How is that different from how Shiba Inu token works? | Genuinely curious | BLKNSLVR wrote: | Monero also has active, on-going development. Shiba Inu, | Dogecoin, and all the other meme coins that have sprung | up as a result of the smell of free money in the air were | created in the space of a couple of hours using Ctrl-C | Ctrl-V of existing open source code, then released to the | world with no care to actual function or any further | effort other than pulling the rug when enough suckers | have bought in. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Monero is an actual coin with a blockchain, mineable by | normal people, low fees, good transaction speed and | always on privacy features that actually work. Shib is | just a meme token created to compete with dogecoin. | jereees wrote: | Fair enough :) | SubiculumCode wrote: | Monero has some super advanced tech involved. Here is an | okay review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O58STfvxZnY | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Shiba Inu is just a token on the Etherum chain. | | There is no privacy and they've done some weird stuff to | play the numbers. | | E.g. they sent half of all SHIB to the creator of | Etherum, why? Because that doubles the "circulating | supply" and therefore market cap while not increasing the | available supply at all. | | This is a scheme to artificially increase the market cap, | which mostly worked because VB burned 95% of all the SHIB | he got & it got a lot of press. | jereees wrote: | Hm. That makes sense, I guess the lack of privacy of the | Ethereum chain could be considered as a feature in terms | of transparency. Good point about the market cap, do you | think Shiba Inu wouldn't have gotten as popular having VB | not giving up control of the token? | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Let me be clear, Shiba Inu is a shitcoin, if someone gave | me any I'd sell it in a second. | | It got popular before VB burned it. | DickingAround wrote: | What do you mean? We totally got what we wanted; we have a | deflationary currency we trade for goods and services. | | I'm 100% serious here; it's been working fine for quite a | number of years. The fiat conversion is pretty noisy but BTC | on average goes up in value in fiat terms at a fast pace. BTC | is easy to turn it into stuff. No one has ever censored my | transactions or asked for ID. Even if you buy something | really expensive or totally illegal. It has literally already | worked. It started working the day that guy bought a pizza | and it hasn't stopped working. | ptr2voidStar wrote: | The level of delusion when it comes to cryptocurrencies - | is unreal. | | As a market practitioner of many decades, I must say I have | never witness this level of froth and delusion before. | | I'm studying it with great interest (and a touch of disdain | about my fellow humans unbounded rationality/irrational | exuberance about cryptos) | drexlspivey wrote: | Ah yes the typical HN commenter who sees hundreds of | millions of people doing something and assumes that he | knows better. | phyalow wrote: | Look, I too am a "Market Practitioner for decades". Their | is indeed a tremendous amount of froth and outright scams | going on. Beneath the surface you can actually find a few | products that generate extremely attractive risk adjusted | returns with actual cashflows with near 0 counterparty | risk. Take a look at aave.com its a decentralised money | market. | kaba0 wrote: | Why is illegal transactions a goal? You can hate on | governments all you want, but that is the only way | currently known where we can have a reasonable say into the | laws made and uphold -- and order is not a bad thing in my | opinion. Why circumvent that, instead of voting someone in | who will create reasonable laws to protect us all? | throw123123123 wrote: | I cant vote in the US. In argentina, however, the | government seized my bank accounts and made it illegal to | trade foreign currencies. | [deleted] | wpietri wrote: | > we have a deflationary currency we trade for goods and | services. | | You do not, not really. Merchant adoption is microscopic. | Even prominent Bitcoin fans admit it's terrible as a | payment system. E.g., Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures: | https://avc.com/2017/08/store-of-value-vs-payment-system/ | | Or look at Overstock, one of the few large retailers that | accepts it. Something like 0.1% of their business is done | using it, which explains why most other merchants don't | bother. Even there, they price everything in dollars, so if | the Bitcoin price shifts between you purchasing something | and you returning it, you'll get the dollar equivalent, not | the Bitcoin you gave them: | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/style/what-can-you- | actual... | | This is especially obvious when you contrast it with | something like M-Pesa, an e-cash system that launched | around the same time. It's hugely popular in the countries | it operates in. (Along the way, it did a lot for banking | the unbanked, one of the mirage-like goals that Bitcoin is | always approaching but never arrives at.) The transaction | volume is orders of magnitude higher than Bitcoin. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa | | Sure, it technically works; you can probably still buy a | pizza somewhere. But "technically works" is a shaky | standard even for something that just launched. It's no | standard at all for something that launched the same time | as Android or Uber. | Ma8ee wrote: | And why would you want a deflationary currency? If you see | it as an investment, then of course. But for the general | economy it is better when people spend their money sooner | rather than later, and capital gets invested where it does | something useful. | ptr2voidStar wrote: | Ah, the old Keynesian argument... | Ericson2314 wrote: | Um yes? And reality consistently confirms | Keynsian/demand-side modeling. | 988747 wrote: | Keynsian demand-driven economy is the root of all evil, | i.e. market bubbles that pop eventually. Everyone except | market speculators would be much better of with supply- | driven economy and small deflation. | | For one it would provide incentive to save money and | spend it wisely, instead of mindlessly buying all that | unnecessary crap. | 3np wrote: | Well, now that it exists, what would you as an individual | rather keep your cash in compared to inflationary fiat | held in an account with negative interest rate? | danhak wrote: | > we have a deflationary currency we trade for goods and | services. | | Such a vanishingly small percentage of cryptocurrency | activity is actually used for trade (as opposed to | speculation) that it is a novelty and newsworthy when it | actually happens. | | E.g. We all know about that guy who bought a pizza with | BTC. And when Tesla decided to allow purchases via BTC | (which they have since backtracked) it was a media | sensation and market-moving. This is not normal. | Baeocystin wrote: | Is this really true? I buy stuff with crypto all the | time. | | It's how I learned about crypto in the first place- back | ~2015, I ordered legitimate, had-a-prescription | medication for my father from overseas using bitcoin, as | it was the only way I could get it, as the even-with- | insurance price in the states was beyond our means. Wound | up doing so for several years, and it was much easier | than dealing with the 'normal' ways of payment. A lot of | the things I order from overseas in general I pay for in | crypto, simply because it's cheaper & easier than doing | regular currency conversions. I'm talking about regular | things, like specialty foods, or everyday items I can't | find in the states. Nothing even close to grey market or | sketchy. Just regular financial transactions, using | crypto. | | I'm sure by numbers my <$100-equivalent purchases are | small potatoes, but how is that not also true for regular | money? There are billions of dollars of capital sloshing | around in the markets, but that doesn't make my personal- | level spending not useful. | frosted-flakes wrote: | Don't all online payment systems use cryptography? | perl4ever wrote: | I don't know what jurisdiction you are in, but as far as | I know, crypto is treated as a capital asset in the US, | not a currency, so I'm unprepared to deal with the tax | consequences of using it as a currency. | | If I paid for things with it then every transaction would | require calculating capital gains/losses. And it's far | worse than conventional assets like stocks because at | least the brokers track that stuff for you. | joshuahaglund wrote: | Have you heard of PayPal? Because i buy things | internationally and pay with PayPal all the time. If I | don't receive the order, I can contest and cancel the | charge (sometimes). And there's no transaction fee that | I'm aware of. | | Do you buy $5 items internationally? Because the bulk of | my international orders are low value items. If I have to | spend more on a transaction fee than the item costs, I'm | not gonna buy the item. Oh, lightning you say? You really | think I should trust that more than pay pal? | ipaddr wrote: | You sound new to the paypal ban me for no reason game. We | all play we just never know when we lose. | Baeocystin wrote: | https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/paypal-fees | https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/average-credit- | card... | | There are significant international transaction fees. | There are also merchant fees involved for sellers. Much | like the ubiquitous credit card fees, you may not see it | line-itemized on your bill, but the costs are absolutely | part of the price you see at checkout. | | Literally everything I buy with crypto, the crypto | network fees are less than what I would have paid | otherwise. | joshuahaglund wrote: | I guess my point is that with PayPal, as a buyer, the | transaction fees are seamlessly included in the price. | | With crypto, it depends. Which coin? Which wallet? Which | seller or marketplace? I'm curious if you care to share | more about your transactions, that cost less using | crypto. Now, if you're saying that you bought at $100 and | it's at $1000, and you "paid less" that way, that's just | this stage of the ponzi scheme's doing, not an inherent | feature of the network that lowers costs. | Baeocystin wrote: | Oh, for sure, there's plenty of work to still be done on | the crypto side of things. | | Regarding which coins I use, it's mostly Bitcoin Cash or | Doge. No funny accounting or anything. The network | transaction fees are readily available: | | https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/dogecoin- | transactionfee... | | https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin%20cash- | transact... | 3np wrote: | Have you heard of all the people arbitrarily | blocked/banned/censored by PayPal? Just for one, I had my | Paypal account permanently closed because I (many years | prior to the block) registered it when I was still under | --age. Separately, I am resident in a new country where | for arbitrary reasons I don't have all the necessary | validation to open a Transferwise account registered | here. | | Relying on a small handful of centralized private service | providers for critical infrastructure is a bad idea. My | situation is not unique or strange. I could most likely | illegally submit false information or register new | accounts, with the risk of having payments frozen or even | held at any point. Some online vendors only use PayPal, | which has lifetime banned me as a person, so by extension | I can not purchase from these vendors. | | I do trust Lightning more than any of these. I actually | regularly use for payments for stuff like you mentioned. | Last time a $11 purchase yesterday, which even including | amortized channel opening cost was most certainly less | fees than PayPal would have been. | | ---- | | You're happy with PayPal now, because it works fine for | you, but the increasing power they have over individuals | and the economy is real, concerning and dangerous. | joshuahaglund wrote: | I'll agree with you that the monopolies (or too big to | fail whatever) in finance and technology should be broken | up. And I hope everyone who is into crypto banks their | fiat at a local credit union. | | But I think for most people using lightning means getting | an account with a wallet provider. Couldn't they suspend | your account for violating ToS? I guess some people could | setup their own channel but I don't think that's what | most people do. | | Proof of Stake just means the biggest entities will have | control. That doesn't sound stable to me but good luck. | OOPMan wrote: | Are you being intentionally daft? | | Or do you genuinely fail to realise thay there is a | difference between you and small number of other people | relative to the global population using cryptocurrency as | money as compared to everyone on the planet doing so? | Baeocystin wrote: | Ideas start from somewhere, and take time to spread. | 908087 wrote: | Unless something major changes, I'm guessing we can | expect to continue hearing about how it's "still early | days" and "just takes time to catch on" another decade | from now. | temptemptemp111 wrote: | I think they're literally blind. It is biblical. | alanbernstein wrote: | What percentage of dollars are used for trade, as opposed | to investment? Does it matter? | [deleted] | DickingAround wrote: | I guess I don't totally know how to respond to that; I | have no idea what everyone is using it for. That's rather | hard to know just looking at the blockchain, or even | reading message boards like this. I have no problem | spending it; pretty easy to convert it to gift cards that | can be spent anywhere (they give you a kick back even), | there's some places that do take it directly (not | restaurants, or car repair, but like electronics stuff on | the internet). And of course you can just sell it for | fiat on an exchange then turn around and dump the fiat | for stuff (in this case, fiat is kind of the weak asset | since no one really wants to hold cash for long). Plus, | it can buy some stuff you can't get with fiat (e.g. | overseas purchases not tied into USD, or all the dark web | stuff people talk about). It feels pretty darn liquid; | I've never had a problem turning BTC into stuff. And it | is way more so than gold, land, even stocks and bonds; | none of which can turn into stuff in under an hour much | less without audit/paper-trail/control. Only fiat is more | liquid, except no one wants to hold fiat; just turn it | into something else actually worth having. The real | problem is getting BTC. Lots of roadblocks in acquiring | it and generally the people who have it would rather pay | you in fiat and keep their BTC. | Closi wrote: | What's the point of a currency where you have to convert | it to another currency to spend it? | | (I've got an idea, and I think the answer is | speculation....) | | Converting BTC to Fiat and then spending Fiat isn't the | same as buying things with Bitcoin. It's buying things in | Fiat with extra steps. | fvdessen wrote: | If the extra step means my money doesn't lose value as | government print cash like there's no tomorrow, then that | step is quite valuable to me | FalconSensei wrote: | It only loses value when Elon shitpost on Twitter, right? | klyrs wrote: | Transaction fees were north of $50 a couple of weeks ago. | Who's buying a pizza with that overhead? Genuinely asking, | because I've a bridge to sell | | Before the edit window closes... 5 workarounds and | counting. Are they interoperable, or is all this a thick | layer of bullshit that users need to wade through to spend | their "currency"? I see the plurality of "solutions" here | indicative of a problem. Yes, you can fix anything with | duct tape, but then it gets _sticky_ | suikadayo wrote: | You can use Ethereum Layer 2 tech like Loopring, zkSync, | and eventually Optimism which Coinbase supports in the | Coinbase Wallet. They haven't even added support for | Lightning | Daishiman wrote: | Nobody in the real world is using any of this. | 3np wrote: | ...yet, all these are fairly new. Give it another 2-5 | years for implementations and integrations. | | Also, it's already used in defi, if you count that as | "real world". Reminds me of when anything on the internet | wasnt "real". | Daishiman wrote: | Sorry but I've been following the last decade of the | crypto world. In a decade I have not seen a single "defi" | product sticking around because there just doesn't seem | to be real demand for these products. | | Considering how many spaces in new startups developed | massive traction in that span of time (social networks, | other forms of digital payments and banking, online | marketplaces) the fact that there are no star products in | such a span of time gives me little consideration. | grubles wrote: | You can use Lightning (a Bitcoin technology) to send BTC | which is extremely cheap in comparison. Talking fractions | of a cent. | throwkeep wrote: | How do you use the Lightning network? | SubiculumCode wrote: | Via the Polygon commit chain, these issues are fixed. | Polygon's adoption is through the roof, saving Ethereum's | butt. Hence the massive price climb. | [deleted] | andrewzah wrote: | "or asked for ID" | | That ship sailed long ago in the US if you use any | exchange. Not using an ID is much, much harder now. And is | kind of besides the point with a public ledger. | skoopie wrote: | He was talking about paying w/bitcoin. You don't need KYC | for that. | ffggvv wrote: | protip: dont try engaging cultists. youd have more luck | persuading a brick wall. | skoopie wrote: | Agreed. Fiat maximalists are persistent though. | intotheabyss wrote: | I can't believe this blatant denialism still exists on HN | despite the fact that Ethereum has a thriving defi ecosystem. | I can get a loan peer to peer today with my ETH in a | stablecoin and yet you say there's no there there? Right.... | yourabstraction wrote: | HN crowd are like the flat earthers of the cryptosphere. | When people's self esteem relies on them being contrarian | don't expect them to actually put in the effort to learn | about something. | skoopie wrote: | I ignored crypto for several years because I put too much | weight on opinions from HN. I'd probably be retired by | now if I'd actually paid more attention. | boc wrote: | I understand crypto perfectly and I strongly believe that | it's ultimately useless. The difference is that I have no | financial incentive to tell everyone I know about crypto, | whereas you certainly do. | | I'll leave it up to the audience to decide which one of | us is biased. | nikanj wrote: | Cryptos also have a thriving theft ecosystem, and illegal | uses dwarf the few defi experiments. | colordrops wrote: | That doesn't cause the positive use cases to not exist. | 3np wrote: | Source for the last point? I'm quite certain this is not | the case anymore. | thevardanian wrote: | Ya... And the internet is used for pirating media, porn, | wasting time browsing, gaming and the other millions of | "useless" things that it's associated with. The amount of | sheer time wasted on the internet is incredible, let | alone all the filthy illegal things that are happening on | it. | | Guess we can throw the internet into the trash bin too. | ipaddr wrote: | I remember the mantra well. I remember the backwards | messages in rock music were blamed for brainwashing kids. | They would slow a record down and play it backwards and | come up with words from the noise that matched their fear | message. | [deleted] | shiftingleft wrote: | Is there any advantage over existing systems either for the | lender or the debtor? | intotheabyss wrote: | Huge advantages for both. For example, something that's | only possible on a blockchain is a flashloan. This is | where you can get a loan for any amount (liquidity | provided) as long as you repay the full loan amount in | the same block. This primitive alone allows for much | higher velocities of money since value can be moved and | repayed in a single block (on the order of 10 seconds). | | All of the advantages of defi boil down to increases in | velocity of money. For example you can deposit funds into | a contract and receive a token that represents your | liquidity position. You can then use this token in other | applications. So now you have this composability of money | which allows people to create new financial primitives. | SmellTheGlove wrote: | OK but why and for what purpose? | SubiculumCode wrote: | THETA->Super Hi Def video streaming | https://www.thetatoken.org/ | | VET-> Supply Chain Authentication for Businesses | https://www.vechain.org/ | | Are two real world examples that are starting to see | adoption. Also this articles covers it well: | https://101blockchains.com/practical-blockchain-use- | cases/ | leifg wrote: | I am an engineer for more than 12 years. I think I have a | reasonably good idea of how a blockchain works. | | I have no idea how these two projects are supposed to | work. Who is supposed to use this if there isn't even a | concise description of the product? | | Judging by their Twitter accounts both of these companies | have been around since 2017. How many active users do | they have? | SubiculumCode wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf-Op-1peZI for less | formal overview https://www.thetatoken.org/ contains | white papers if you want the technicals. | jayd16 wrote: | Who is giving out 10 second loans and why would they do | that? | matkoniecz wrote: | > This is where you can get a loan for any amount | (liquidity provided) as long as you repay the full loan | amount in the same block. | | What is the point of that? | | > So now you have this composability of money which | allows people to create new financial primitives. | | Are there any useful for anything beyond | gambling/speculation/NFT-like FOMO-powered bubbles? | barneysversion wrote: | >> This is where you can get a loan for any amount | (liquidity provided) as long as you repay the full loan | amount in the same block. | | > What is the point of that? | | Leveraging arbitrage | matkoniecz wrote: | "This primitive alone allows for much higher velocities | of money since value can be moved and repayed in a single | block (on the order of 10 seconds)." | | what can be usefully arbitraged in that time in way that | guarantees no loss? | wmf wrote: | Exploiting contract bugs. | exo762 wrote: | It's actually way funnier than GOP presets to be. | Flashloan must be paid back in the same transaction. | Since whole thing happens in the same tx, it's atomic. So | you can use smart-contract logic to determine if you are | actually making a profit, and if you are not - revert! | Mc_Big_G wrote: | You might think Bitcoin is not a good store of value, but a | lot of people disagree with you. The energy "waste" argument | is just virtual signaling at this point. It has been | thoroughly debunked. | 908087 wrote: | How, exactly, has the energy waste argument been thoroughly | debunked? As far as I can tell, the waste has increased | exponentially in recent months.. which isn't the kind of | factoid I'd put in the "debunked" column. | brighton36 wrote: | I agree with most everything you just wrote. But, note that | the problem with Proof of Stake, in this thinking, is that | you won't be able to buy tokens from your local energy | company, when the regulators shut your blockchain down. | reedjosh wrote: | Currency competition alone is a major milestone. The USD is | the _legal_ tender of the US. As in other currencies are not | allowed. | | Because digital currency can't just be taken down, those that | don't want to live under an inflationary de-facto tax, now | have that option. | leishman wrote: | Funny how everyone complains it's wasteful yet I see | absolutely nobody complaining that they have some sort of | electricity shortage because of Bitcoin miners. | Barrin92 wrote: | Then you're probably not from Iran because crypto miners | have routinely sparked power outages there. | | https://observers.france24.com/en/middle-east/20210203-in- | ir... | kelnos wrote: | I don't know what (if any) effect Bitcoin mining has had on | electricity prices, but we do have a GPU shortage because | of Bitcoin miners. | | It's a bit ridiculous when regular stores have _lotteries_ | to grant you the privilege of purchasing one of a scarce | number of GPUs... at regular retail price. | roskelld wrote: | Bitcoin doesn't use GPUs for mining. Bitcoin mining is | performed with custom ASIC hardware. GPUs cannot compete | as they're not built for purpose. | Valgrim wrote: | The issue is not scarcity, it's pollution. | drdeca wrote: | In a sense, we could say "lack of CO2 in the atmosphere" | is the scarce resource which is being depleted. | | ( Maybe kind of like how you can think of something which | can burn by absorbing oxygen, as releasing phlogiston | (which is just a lack of oxygen, in a certain sense)? ) | Rogach wrote: | Well, here's a datapoint for you: I've witnessed firsthand | how a big miner farm resulted in full blackout in a small- | ish city (~100k population). | drew-y wrote: | Because shortages aren't the issue. The issue is using more | power than all of Argentina for one currency. That is a lot | of CO2 emissions for something that brings questionable | value. | jollybean wrote: | "The issue is using more power than all of Argentina for | one currency. " | | It's using the power of Argentina for an MLM/Ponzi scheme | that doesn't apparently create any value. | | If it were a) broadly useful and b) used less power it | would be another story. | | 'Cruise ships' at least allow people to 'cruise'. | atweiden wrote: | Why is it "not useful" to opt out of the inflationary | issuance of major government currencies? | trainsplanes wrote: | You're not opting out of anything. At the end of the day, | everyone is trading their crypto for dollars or another | government currency. | | Crypto is opting out of real money is the same way buying | an unstable stock is. People are buying it hoping to get | rich and convincing others to do the same, hoping they'll | sell it off before the price crashes and it's completely | worthless. Nobody is buying milk and eggs with GameStop | stocks or *coins, and if they did, it'd make | international news and that singular event would be | referenced for 5 years by supporters as an example of how | "real" their currency is. | atweiden wrote: | > Crypto is opting out of real money is the same way | buying an unstable stock is | | Cryptocurrencies are indeed traded like meme stocks -- | their value is 100% based on narrative. The difference is | meme stocks can't be electronically transacted sans | trusted third parties, which if you recall from the 2009 | Satoshi paper, is the entire point of Bitcoin. | | (There are other benefits to having a global currency of | fixed supply controlled by computer algorithms, e.g. | transparent supply metrics.) | | > hoping they'll sell it off before the price crashes and | it's completely worthless | | What are the holders of Bitcoin supposed to sell it for, | exactly? USD is being inflated. The stock market is | insane. Housing is insane and comes with tax and | maintenance liabilities virtually everywhere. Artwork is | physical and illiquid. Government debt is increasingly | dubious. | | It would take governments becoming fiscally responsible | and a return to a gold standard for Bitcoin to become | less societally relevant. And even then, gold and gold- | backed government monies would suffer from transparency | issues and not being able to be electronically transacted | sans trusted third parties. | | I'm afraid there's really just no good news here for | people who refuse to invest in Bitcoin on general | principle. | skohan wrote: | The problem is with negative externalities. | caconym_ wrote: | Cruise ships are hideously wasteful, but I don't see | anybody complaining that they have some sort of gas | shortage because of cruise ships _specifically_. Gas prices | are what they are, and consumers complain in very general | terms because they don 't have good visibility into the | global oil markets. | | For all I know off the top of my head (where this comment | is coming from), cruise ships _aren 't_ a significant | driver of oil prices. I'd expect the scale of the shipping | market to dwarf their effect, and I'd expect production to | rise to meet their relatively steady demand, though I could | be wrong about either or both. None of that (whatever the | answers may be) means they aren't hideously wasteful in | absolute and very meaningful terms. | Spivak wrote: | I mean on HN you really do see a very anti-cruise ship | sentiment whenever the topic comes up. They are really | really wasteful and worse than commercial ships since | they pollute the very water people want to visit for its | beauty. | | I wouldn't really be all that upset to see them banned | but there's no momentum for it. Crypto just happens to be | really visible to a lot of people who see no personal | benefit for its existence. | caconym_ wrote: | > I mean on HN you really do see a very anti-cruise ship | sentiment whenever the topic comes up. | | For sure, and in other contexts too, but I don't think | the issue of not being able to buy gas because cruise | ships exist comes up often (mostly because AFAICT it's | not real). And that's really my point: it's perfectly | valid to complain about cruise ships being wasteful | _without_ being able to point to some incredibly obvious | consumer-facing manifestation of that waste, because them | being wasteful (they are, obviously) isn't predicated on | any such manifestation. Despite the vast scale of their | waste, they're a drop in the bucket that is the global | economy. | [deleted] | imtringued wrote: | It's going to happen eventually. | cblconfederate wrote: | I wish we could have proof of work but the work would be | something like , doing an actual workout. | acid__ wrote: | That's how you end up with crypto-mining sweatshops... | Judgmentality wrote: | Now _this_ is my favorite new cryptocurrency idea! | pkdpic_y9k wrote: | I knew there was a reason I was still slogging through these | comments. Well commented sir. | Heteraruki wrote: | Proof of Stake is the worst form of Socialism. It is Socialism | governed by the wealthiest elite | | Proof of Work is brute Capitalism. It Capitalism without regard | for life or health. | | STX is Proof of Transfer (secured by bitcoin's hash-power and | the Stacks network). | | Proof of Transfer is the best of both worlds. It is community | and global capitalism with community and global responsibility. | | When a technology is simultaneously a store of value, & a | utility, the demand for it is exponential, people will seek it | in both states, but for different and individual purposes. STX | earns BTC for the directed purposes of any individual and as | that individual desires with minimal network effect. STX drives | community demand only as demanded by the community. STX drives | Network benefits only as desired by the Network. | | Lets imagine a series of networked micro-communities built with | sun energy using solar panels that photochemically convert the | atmospheric water into liquid hydrogen. This is being done | today. | | That hydrogen is then stored as energy in fuel cell batteries. | That energy is then used in part to mine community bitcoin. | | That community bitcoin is used in part to build and maintain | community infrastructure and finance community healthcare. | | The community will also use a small portion of the wholesale | mined bitcoin to leverage the Stacks Proof of Transfer PoX | miners. The STX block reward will support the maintenance and | expense of bitcoin mining. The winning PoX miner's committed | bitcoin is allocated randomly to the locked Stacks token | holders that are all also bitcoin miners. | | The locked pools secure the stacks chain and bitcoin node | operators secure the bitcoin chain. | | The community through Non-fungible tokenized (NFTized) hashed | identity quadratically vote on finance mechanisms using the | creation of decidable language smart-contracts. | | Those smart-contracts execute for community tokenized | provenances or (NFT's) of decentralized communication, | decentralized wealth & decentralized egalitarian and merit | based commerce. And the by-product is pure H2O and clean air. | aqme28 wrote: | I am not convinced that PoW is immune to those pressures or | even resistant to it. The people with capital control the | mining. | | At least the environmental problems are reduced with PoS | beambot wrote: | POW is permissionless, in that you don't need anyone's | permission to setup a mining rig and contribute significant | work. | | POS isn't permissionless -- you literally have to buy a stake | from existing holders in order to participate. | kelnos wrote: | The money to build a mining rig and consume the electricity | needed to run it is not even remotely permissionless. To | add insult to injury, most miners ignore the externalities | of that electricity use. | chrischattin wrote: | It costs a couple hundred bucks to setup the hardware to | run a Bitcoin node. As of today's exchange rate, you need | ~$130k to stake ETH. | drdeca wrote: | Wait, to run a node (like, just keeping track of the | chain), or to mine in a way that isn't entirely | ineffectual? Because the former doesn't seem like the | proper analogy to staking. | chrischattin wrote: | You can mine with a Raspberry Pi. It won't be profitable. | But, you'll be contributing to the security of the | network. | drdeca wrote: | What is the impact of a miner on the security of the | network, conditioned on the event that it never | successfully mines a block? I would think it would be 0. | | The probability that a raspi ever mines a block (like, if | it were to start now, not if it was going since the | network first started) is negligible. | | Therefore, I consider the probability that a given raspi | would contribute to the security of the network, or, I | suppose equivalently, the degree to which it contributes, | to be negligible. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | It also costs a couple hundred bucks to run an Ethereum | node. You are confusing running a validator and running a | node, those are two independent things, just like mining | and running a node. | Taek wrote: | There's a couple of misunderstandings here. | | Mining is expensive and low margin. Generally, the people who | own the most Bitcoins are not the same as the people with the | most mining rigs, the two parties tend to be completely | divorced, and the miners tend to be strongly incentivized | around not rocking the boat (for better or worse). | | The other misunderstanding is that mining doesn't shape the | protocol. The users shape the protocol, and can run any | validation software they want. No user has to accept a block | by a miner, and every block made by a miner has to conform to | the protocol's rules. | leishman wrote: | The difference is that PoW is censorship resistant. Anybody | can be a miner and existing miners cannot censor new miners. | Performing new work is external to the network state. In PoS, | existing stakers can prevent new stakers from registering. | Very important distinction. | owens99 wrote: | Thank you for bringing this up. | incrudible wrote: | The network majority can enforce _any_ rule, doesn 't | matter if it's PoW or PoS. | sunsu wrote: | Wrong. NODEs (individual network participants) enforce | the rules, not miners. | incrudible wrote: | Fantasy. Nothing forces miners to accept transactions | sent by nodes attempting to enforce some rule. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Its the other way round -- nothing forces nodes to accept | bad blocks from miners. An honest node would simply | ignore the bad data. The exchanges run nodes, so I would | rather be generating or receiving transactions on a chain | (or fork) that its users are engaging with. Nodes accept | blocks from miners, miners don't accept blocks from | nodes. | WanderPanda wrote: | Isn't there an incentive to run a node for privacy? With | your own node you are not leaking your xpub and you don't | leak your transactions by staring at them on a block | explorer | Ekaros wrote: | Wouldn't your own node unless properly hidden be higher | chance of leaking your transactions? As I would expect | them to come from your own node... Ofc, tracking the ones | made from other services sure it is safer. | minsc__and__boo wrote: | Nodes still work on consensus, and given that they have | no incentivization to exist, they have been dropping in | number over years. | incrudible wrote: | Where do those honest blocks come from, if not from | honest miners? Where do honest miners come from? | drdeca wrote: | Aren't both things true? Miners can't force nodes to | accept blocks as being valid, nodes can't force miners to | include transactions in their blocks. | | These statements are not in conflict. | [deleted] | jasode wrote: | _> Fantasy. Nothing forces miners to accept transactions | sent by nodes attempting to enforce some rule._ | | I deleted a previous reply to you because I think I may | have misunderstood what you wrote. In any case, are you | saying the _majority of miners_ have the ultimate control | of the protocol rules of the cryptocurrency? | incrudible wrote: | Not in principle, but I do believe this to be the case | for Bitcoin specifically. Network majority is distinct | from minor majority, but obviously miner (or stakeholder) | majority is an extremely important part of it. | jasode wrote: | _> Not in principle, but I do believe this to be the case | for Bitcoin specifically. Network majority is distinct | from minor majority, but obviously miner (or stakeholder) | majority is an extremely important part of it._ | | In 2017, the majority of miner hashpower wanted to change | the Bitcoin protocol to increase 1MB blocksize to 2MB but | the SegWit2x failed to be adopted. What's your | interpretation of that event? | minsc__and__boo wrote: | That's the same with PoW though, isn't it? | | Existing PoW miners can fork away from any new miners that | won the last block. | whyrusleeping wrote: | Its not really though, if the majority of PoW miners want | to omit a certain miners blocks, they can. The protocol | dictates that the chain created by the majority of mining | power is the canonical one. | | In the event that a censored party can create a heavier | chain (has >50% of the mining power) then the argument that | its more censorship resistant holds, but on the PoS side, | you would be betting that not a single participant in the | main chain included their new stake registration in their | blocks. This is different than the PoW model as non- | malicious nodes in PoW can still be part of the main chain. | It's definitely not that cut and dry | crazypython wrote: | > Its not really though, if the majority of PoW miners | want to omit a certain miners blocks, they can. | | Censored transactions can hire/pay miners who won't | censor more transaction fees, to encourage them to | include the transactions in a block. In other words, | since transactors pay miners, transactors are customers | of miners. | | There is an open market competition- any miner censoring | transactions will lose higher fees from people who send | censored transactions. | leishman wrote: | There are a few distinctions: 1. In PoS you actually | never know who mined a given block with certainty. You | can mine anonymously making censorship pretty difficult. | This is not the case in PoS. 2. In PoW miners risk losing | money by not building off the block found by a miner | they're trying to censor. There is a cost to losing. This | isn't the case in PoS (for the most part), as long as | they don't double stake. 3. Additionally, the key | distinguisher is that miners and custodians (almost all | US based and controlled by VC funds) are two very | distinct groups in Bitcoin. In a PoS currency they are | the same group. That results in a power consolidation | that effectively makes a PoS currency completely | controlled by a few silicon valley insiders and | eventually the US government. | drdeca wrote: | I think you made a typo in your point #1, as you said | something is the case of PoS, and then contrasted it with | PoS, saying "This is not the case in PoS". I suspect the | first PoS was meant to say PoW. | | Correcting that is the main point of this comment, the | rest is just a side note. | | I don't really understand your point #2, but this very | well may be because I don't understand the proposed | protocol. | | You say "as long as they don't double stake", but if a | given block is expected to probably be in the consensus | chain, then either they don't endorse it or whatever, not | putting their stake behind it, and therefore, I would | think whatever they do put their stake behind, if the | block-to-be-censored is included in the long-run | consensus, then what they backed isn't, and so they get | no reward, and so they lost out on potential reward, or, | if they try to support multiple things, they lose (some | fraction of) their stake. | | Uh, unless they can be rewarded for supporting a block | that is parallel to the block-to-censor even though the | block-to-censor gets in? But that doesn't seem right. I | suppose there are uncle blocks maybe (idk if that is part | of Ethereum's planned PoS system or just its current | system), but those have a substantially lower reward, so | deliberately producing probably-uncles would still | involve giving up rewards on average. | | Again I could easily be missing something here. | minsc__and__boo wrote: | That's a good point, though mining is also controlled by | access to the cheapest costs (i.e. siphoning electricity off | of a grid). | colordrops wrote: | Controlling the mining doesn't allow you to control much | about how transactions work. | trashcan_ wrote: | If you control mining you do control how transactions work. | You are running the code that handles transactions and you | can change that code to handle transactions in any way you | want. There is a history of this happening too but thus far | with little effect on the entire network but worst case you | could create a hardfork. | incrudible wrote: | The network majority decides everything, including how | transactions work, how many coins there are, what the block | size is... | | The prospect that there's only ever going to be 21 million | Bitcoin is ensured by nothing except majority opinion. It's | not inconceivable that this will be relaxed in the future | and Bitcoin will have a "Bitcoin Classic" fork where old | rules are enforced. This could happen if, for instance, | transaction fees don't make up for miner majority rewards. | crazypython wrote: | > The network majority decides everything, including how | transactions work, how many coins there are, what the | block size is... | | The informal consensus of network full (non-mining) nodes | enforce that. Full nodes are economic actors, such as | people who sell goods and services, who fully verify the | chain. They simply refuse accept inflated Bitcoin. | | A Bitcoin full (non-mining) node only takes 5GB storage | space and 128MB RAM to run. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Not quite -- the 21 million (or more accurately, 2.1 | Quadrillion sat) is a hard line. Any coin not enforcing | this rule is not bitcoin. There of course will be forks | that dont, but they are not bitcoin. | incrudible wrote: | > Any coin not enforcing this rule is not bitcoin. | | That's _your_ opinion. | | > There of course will be forks that dont, but they are | not bitcoin. | | Again, that's _your_ opinion. | drdeca wrote: | That's a definition you can use, sure. And, I do tend to | value using words in a consistent way over time. | | But definitions are choices. People are free to choose | what definitions they think of as "the definition of | <x>". Some such choices are likely to cause more | confusion when they interact with others, but this is not | always sufficient to discourage/prevent some faction of | people from choosing some definition that differs from | that used by some other faction. | | Under the definition you are using for bitcoin, such a | thing would not be the thing that you currently would | consider bitcoin. That's fine. | | This doesn't mean that people wouldn't use the name | "bitcoin" for it. | | Perhaps 2000 years from now, the word "bitcoin" will | instead refer to apples instead, due to random linguistic | drift. (Or, a fruit which resembles apples. Will they | technically count as apples, according to our current | notion of apples?) | scrubs wrote: | Agree. Crypto currency is small and has never had to deal | with major financial fallouts like 2008 mortgage debacle. | The idea that the number of bitcoins can never be changed | for example due to the need to respond to national or | international problems is silly. Ultimately any rules are | but code decided by human factors. Therefore it's not | impossible that there are several forks running several | crypto versions at the same time depending on what people | think represents the best response. A few guys buying | coffee on BC or investing in BC is one thing. Running a | nation on it is a much more dynamic thing. It's for some | of these reasons the US Treasury controls money supply. | There are also connections between national indebtedness | (treasury bonds) and money supply suggesting that | enforcing rules setup up X years ago may not weather the | first storm. | cl0ne wrote: | Miner Extractable Value (MEV) is a problem. They can choose | which transactions to include in a block and how to order | them. | | https://www.coindesk.com/miners-front-running-service-theft | fredfoobar wrote: | There's a whole book written about the history of this: | https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57429394-the- | blocksize-w... | | "Roughly 90% of the hash power once threatened to change the | rules of #Bitcoin believing the users didn't matter in the | decision. The users spun up 10s of thousands of full nodes & | told them to go f*ck themselves." [1] | | [1] https://twitter.com/TheCryptoconomy/status/13940065488763 | 084... | dahfizz wrote: | Why wouldn't a similar "takeover" be possible in a PoS | system? You really haven't addressed the parent's point. | fredfoobar wrote: | [responding to the pre-edit question about PoW] I just | did, you don't need any capital to run a node. The book | documents an incident where there was majority hash-rate | (miners) wanting to change the rules against the wishes | of the users. | | more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IT4s-6T__k | crispyporkbites wrote: | But at scale you need lots of nodes/computational power | and therefore lots of money. It doesn't really make a | difference whether you buy graphics cards in a pow world | or ethereum in a pos world, you need lots of capital to | be influential. | | Now if we could make it Proof of Human, one vote, one | person, non-transferable, that would be true distributed | consensus. Even then you would get people buying votes | with advertising as we see today in "normal" elections. | hanniabu wrote: | > you don't need any capital to run a node | | Please point me in the direction where I can find some of | these free ASIC miners..... | fredfoobar wrote: | full node != miner | | Run your own full node, | | easiest option: getumbrel.com | SilasX wrote: | Did you mean PoS? Parent was talking about a PoW system. | dahfizz wrote: | Yes, editted. | grubles wrote: | You can do much worse things in a PoS system since power | in the system is tied to the asset (ETH). Ethereum DeFi | toys are hacked on a daily basis and millions upon | millions of dollars worth of ETH is stolen. | | It's exactly why the DAO hacker was censored -- they | controlled more ETH than any single account in the | system. | vbuterin wrote: | That was about users' nodes being able to validate blocks; | that's an orthogonal issue from PoW vs PoS. | jude- wrote: | Coins that no ones' nodes validate are worthless, aren't | they? | ekerstein wrote: | This is only relevant if people aren't holding their coins | on exchanges. Most users are and that concentration will | increase as transaction fees are designed to do over the | next decade. | fredfoobar wrote: | I'm here to help that transition, It's already happening, | many folks I know are transitioning to a hardware wallet. | I've personally helped people onboard on to lightning and | running their own node. | | The whole process of running your own node has improved | so much nowadays: getumbrel.com comes to mind. | [deleted] | owens99 wrote: | You're smart, I like your comments. | andrewla wrote: | > Proof of Stake is already how our current financial system | works. | | This is a naive viewpoint. Ethereum (as a currency) is an "M0" | token, like cash or Fed deposits. There's a lot of handwaving | about bonds and whatnot, but essentially the Fed can create new | money simply by changing numbers on a balance sheet, and they | can make that money into folding money and change which they | can issue. | | The banking system is a complex system that creates IOUs on top | of that base. Some of those IOUs are even better than the cash | layer -- you can't buy stock, for example, for cash, you need | bank IOUs to do that. | | That said, then, what is PoW and PoS used for? They're | essentially distributed methods of ensuring that nobody can | forge money. So the equivalent in the world of dollars is not a | bunch of bankers chuckling to themselves about how they're | fleecing the plebes. The equivalent in the real world is a | bunch of aircraft carriers and planes and bombs and people with | big guns, which gives the ability to say (credibly) that it is | a crime to forge dollars no matter who you are or where you | live. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > The equivalent in the real world is a bunch of aircraft | carriers and planes and bombs and people with big guns, which | gives the ability to say (credibly) that it is a crime to | forge dollars no matter who you are or where you live. | | And yet people complain about cryptocurrency energy usage | with a straight face! | reedjosh wrote: | > The equivalent in the real world is a bunch of aircraft | carriers and planes and bombs and people with big guns, which | gives the ability to say (credibly) that it is a crime to | forge dollars no matter who you are or where you live. | | Largely funded by forging dollars. | andrewla wrote: | If you are a miner and you get a block reward for mining a | block in Ethereum, you are not forging currency; this is | the structurally correct way for Ethereum to be created. | | Similarly only the Fed has the ability to make new dollars; | although technically the US Treasury has this ability in a | narrow sense. There's a lot of mummery around how the Fed | goes about doing it, but that is the structurally correct | way for dollars to be created. Calling it forgery or "theft | by inflation" or whatever are political talking points. | | Forgery is specifically when any other party in the world | decides that they can mint coins or print bills. | | Other parties can create dollars in other ways, like by | committing fraud or by taking advantage of the fact that | certain forms of IOUs are so liquid that they are | considered cash equivalents. In the US this is a little | locked down (although the overnight lending market is a | particularly insidious form of shadow banking) but | internationally the Eurodollar market is the wild west | where anything goes. Anything, that is, except actually | forging coins or bills. | reedjosh wrote: | > Anything, that is, except actually forging coins or | bills. | | Of course none of it is forgery, but the net impact is no | different. As soon as the USD loses its reserve status, | the US won't be able to maintain its hegemony that is | funded largely via | | > Fed has the ability to make new dollars; although | technically the US Treasury has this ability in a narrow | sense | [deleted] | not2b wrote: | No, banks make new dollars, every time they make a loan. | The amount of dollars on the books vastly exceeds the | amount of currency printed, and is dominated by bank | deposits. The Fed controls the money supply by regulating | banks. | | "Certain forms of IOUs" would include money in checking | accounts, which is much more money than the total of all | bills in circulation, and this is part of M1. | andrewla wrote: | Banks can create dollars in the sense that they can | synthesize contracts to deliver dollars. These contracts | are liquid enough that they are considered equivalent to | cash, and in many cases superior (as I describe above). | | There is absolutely nothing stopping an institution from | accepting deposits of ETH, and then lending those ETH out | by crediting other account holders with more ETH in their | account. And it is equally possible to imagine that some | vendors might prefer to receive their ETH payments as | credits to their bank accounts, and thus the IOUs | represented by these deposits become "ETH" in the same | sense that bank deposits become "dollars". | | But here we are strictly discussing the underlying | specie. If account holders in a dollar bank demand their | payment in specie, the bank is exposed to that risk. This | risk is small but significant for modern banks because | the credit market for dollars is very liquid, so they can | easily sell loans for their present value to increase | their cash exposure, and thus make good on the demands | for specie. | | The credit market for ETH is all but nonexistent except | in very specific cases (basically just margin for | exchanges) so an ETH bank would be extremely exposed to | the risk of a run, and given the level of volatility and | general deflationary trend in ETH it would be almost | impossible to set a value on future ETH. | vmception wrote: | Correct, the US Federal Reserve is a Proof of Stake system. | Members earn 6% dividends for the last 100 years, and this was | to entice them to join the system at all. Just pointing out | that the idea of an omnipotent US government is a fairly new | concept, and it must incentivize and entice people to join its | payment network as opposed to other private ones. | | The private networks for final settlement are becoming more | interesting to market participants. And they are also aiming | for distributed (sharded) proof of stake. | nextaccountic wrote: | > Members earn 6% dividends for the last 100 years, and this | was to entice them to join the system at all. | | Can you tell more about this? Specially the "and this was to | entice them to join the system at all." part. | vmception wrote: | The Federal Reserve Act from 1913 incentivizes banks to | join the Federal Reserve payments network. Let me update | this to 2020s lingo: The Federal Reserve System is a | decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) that pays its | stakers 6% annually. It has operated for over 100 years | flawlessly. The stakers gain access to a market leading | depository and credit system, and have the ability to voice | opinions on some variables but the shares itself are non- | voting. Like many kinds of entities such as trusts and | foundations, there are no owners, only trustees. | | The human interface to the system is a separate public | agency called the Board of Governors, which simply tells | the public what the Federal Reserve has done, and also | communicates any changes to the Federal Reserve's charter | (any legislative updates) to the DAO. | reedjosh wrote: | The federal reserve is | | Decentralized? | | > The Board of Governors' seven members guide the entire | Fed system. | | > The Board and FOMC make the Fed's decisions based on | research. | | https://www.thebalance.com/the-federal-reserve-system- | and-it... | vmception wrote: | Pick whatever word you prefer for whatever aspect of its | multi-part nature you prefer | | Idgaf | vmception wrote: | Pick whatever word you prefer for whatever aspect of its | multi-part nature you prefer | | Some of the board members come from the member banks | reedjosh wrote: | It's just that decentralized is not what I'd call a | system controlled by 7 people that in turn controls the | legally enforced tender of over 300 million people. | vmception wrote: | Just like all systems that call themselves decentralized, | some aspects are and some aspects arent | jude- wrote: | There's a big difference: the Federal Reserve System | lives in the real world, where node misbehavior (i.e. | officers doing bad things) is punished with jail time, | with ruinous downstream consequences on their families. | | Wake me up when The DAO hacker is caught and put in jail, | and I'll re-consider the analogy. | vmception wrote: | Haha Ill entertain this bit: there are no criminal | consequences for misbehaving as a node. Participation of | a reserve system shareholder is quite limited and only | partially helps assist with routing and regional | statistics. Partially. | | There constraints on being a bank at all are not limited | to federal reserve banks. | ac29 wrote: | > Why did the Federal Reserve Act initially offer such a | generous dividend to member banks? It was essentially part | of a marketing campaign. "At the time the Fed was not | terribly popular with the banks, and they wanted to attract | members," said Allan Meltzer, professor of political | economy at Carnegie Mellon University and a historian of | the Federal Reserve. "They had to give up a major source of | revenue, the charge they made for check clearing. Back | then, if you received a check for $10, you might get back | $9.50." The dividend was seen as a way to entice banks into | joining the Federal Reserve system. | | from: https://newrepublic.com/article/116913/federal- | reserve-divid... | duxup wrote: | Cryptocurrency and the philosophical goals / ideals just don't | match how they...are. | eloff wrote: | I don't think your example proves proof of work isn't | vulnerable to the same effect. At best it proves it's not | always vulnerable to that - but the same could technically | happen with proof of stake. | | Like it or not the Pareto principle or 80/20 rule may well be | the most powerful law of the universe. It applies to everything | from physical systems like stars and galaxies to social systems | and individual human achievement. | | I don't see why crytocurrency should be any different. Proof of | work through cost of capital investment exhibits the exact same | concentration of wealth and power, but at least PoS doesn't | destroy the environment as a side effect. | | I'm skeptical about why we need the decentralized aspect of | cryto when it ends up centralizing anyway. Seems like a very | inefficient way of doing things. Maybe we just want an | immutable public ledger - but I could be wrong on that. It | hasn't lived up to the hype yet. | leishman wrote: | There is a very big difference. PoS collapses governance into | a single group: custodians. With PoW governance is a push and | pull between miners and custodians. Additionally, PoW miners | need to constantly sell Bitcoin to cover operating costs, | whereas stakers in a PoS system have a small fixed cost and | large stakers will always stay large. Miners on the other | hand need to constantly invest and expand to stay | competitive. | fabioyy wrote: | people with money can buy mining factories and make decisions | anyway. | witweb wrote: | Please read up on UASF and Bitcoin. People can buy tons of | mining factories, but if a very large amount of nodes start | rejecting blocks and therefore the rewards, miners start to | rethink their stance very fast. There is no discussion here, | history proves it. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | and UASF are a thing in PoS as well, if some | entity/entities acquire a majority of the staked coins | users can simply fork the malicious actors out. It's | functionally equivalent except that it's an order of | magnitude more expensive to acquire the required coins as | opposed to getting the equivalent in hashpower. | leishman wrote: | See my comment to another in the thread. Existing stakers can | prevent new people from staking. Existing miners can't do | this in a PoW system | Dylan16807 wrote: | > Existing miners can't do this in a PoW system | | Sure they can. It's easy to only mine on top of blocks from | certain sources, and if most of the network does this then | those are the only blocks that matter. | leishman wrote: | You can mine anonymously, you can't stake anonymously. | Dylan16807 wrote: | But my comment is about whitelisting, not blacklisting. | The ability to be anonymous won't stop whitelisting. | leishman wrote: | Sure but the difference with mining is that having a | majority of hashrate doesn't allow you to maintain that | majority in perpetuity. You have constant operating | expenses that require you to sell your Bitcoin, along | with constantly growing competition. Just look at the | rise and fall of large Bitcoin miners. With PoS if you | are the biggest on day 1 you will probably be the biggest | on day 1,000. | 8note wrote: | New people can still vote for their governments to affect | those systems. | | The distinction feels irrelevant | leishman wrote: | It's very relevant. Mining is very easy to geographically | diversify. PoS coins will almost all be controlled by US | based custodians subject to US regulations. PoS coins | will be controlled by the US financial industry at the | end of the day | 8note wrote: | Your government controls which coins _you_ are able to | use. | | It doesn't matter if the coin becomes run by another | geographic area if it's illegal for you to trade in them | zionic wrote: | This is completely false, late/end game PoW centralizes | mining around the cheapest electricity. It is impossible | to mine profitably in the overwhelming majority of the | world now. | zionic wrote: | >See my comment to another in the thread. Existing stakers | can prevent new people from staking | | There is little to no evidence of this. Completely | unsupported conspiracy theory. | suifbwish wrote: | Proof of work consumes a real world resource. Proof of stake | does not, therefore proof of work exchanges REAL value for | virtual value. It literally takes actual value in the world and | deletes it. What's the difference with the US financial | institutions buying up all the big mining rigs and then buying | up all the stakable tokens ? | ptr2voidStar wrote: | It is astonishing to me that this has to be stated _explicitly_ | like this for people to see this for what it is. | | "Turkeys voting for Christmas" comes to mind. | | Cryptocurrency offers the opportunity to break away from the | current hegemony - only for people to hand over the power back | to the powerful. | | Perhaps the world is in the current state - because that's what | we deserve? (because we keep voting for it?) | vbuterin wrote: | I think you're conflating _consensus_ and _governance_; the two | are quite different. It's not PoW vs PoS that allows a chain to | resist a coordinated attempt by elites to force a protocol | change, it's users personally verifying the chain (and so | automatically rejecting chains that violate the rules even if | >51% of PoW/PoS nodes support those chains). So no, PoS is not | "how our current financial system works". Our current financial | system doesn't give people the ability to independently verify | anything at all; it's even worse than the most centralized | chains in that regard. | | I would actually say PoS is more resistant to cabals and | regulatory systems than PoW; PoW mining requires huge and | visible capital investments and electricity consumption and | it's incredibly easy for governments to detect and shut down | miners in their own countries (not as true for GPU mining, but | GPU-friendliness is difficult to sustain long term), whereas | you can be a PoS validator with the most basic computer | hardware from anywhere. | fredfoobar wrote: | > Our current financial system doesn't give people the | ability to independently verify anything at all; it's even | worse than the most centralized chains in that regard. | | I'm sorry, that sounds incorrect, many people have been | "verifying" things independently and sounding the alarm, but | nothing happens. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | Lol. Can you personally verify what your bank is doing? No | you can't. If it was on the blockchain, you could. | fredfoobar wrote: | He's talking about the Financial System, not the Bank | (akin to a node) | EugeneOZ wrote: | With PoS one can just buy _governance_, that's all. All you | need to have more influence on (PoS-based) Etherium is a huge | amount of money. More power to money-bags! | | So "fresh" idea :) | grubles wrote: | It shouldn't be much of a surprise to learn that Vitalik is | part of the Ethereum Foundation which controls the | trademark to Ethereum as well as all of the popular social | media channels (r/ethereum, @ethereum twitter account, | ethereum.org domain). Ethereum is the illusion of | decentralization. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | It shouldn't be much of a surprise to learn that the | r/bitcoin sub, bitcointalk.org, and several other bitcoin | communities are owned by one and the same person that | have a history of censoring dissenting opinions. Just | read up on the r/bitcoin history. | | Bitcoin is the illusion of decentralization. | atweiden wrote: | > It shouldn't be much of a surprise to learn that the | r/bitcoin sub, bitcointalk.org, and several other bitcoin | communities are owned by one and the same person that | have a history of censoring dissenting opinions. Just | read up on the r/bitcoin history. | | Cryptocurrency discussions are notoriously filled with | astroturfing. It's a lot like what would happen if | present-day nation states quite literally lived and died | based on the market price of 24/7 globally traded bearer | shares. The saying "well kept gardens die by pacifism" is | resoundingly true here, to put it mildly. | | Historically, the opponents to the now infamous "Bitcoin | as digital gold" narrative were pushing things like | gigablocks, nodes in datacenters, "Bitcoin as PayPal | 2.0", let's replace all the core developers, etc based on | populist appeals. There was no way to distinguish between | those populist appeals and attempts to foil Bitcoin | socially by all manner of biased attackers (and just | plain ignorant people). | | I think it's rather telling that after these people | forked to Bcash, they subsequently capped the block size | of Bcash to 32MB and are now ironically scaling Bcash via | sidechains -- e.g. SmartBCH -- against the backdrop of | historically claiming BTC would never increase in price | past $300 USD without a block size increase. To say their | entire worldview has been invalidated would be an | understatement. | EugeneOZ wrote: | Well, I'm not naive enough to expect something else. | People are making money and protect their businesses. It | is ok for me. | | For some people (not for me) living in poor countries, | mining was a chance to improve their lives. Now it's sold | for the opportunity to give more money to those who have | large amounts of money. | | All these talks about the climate are so ridiculous in | this context - nobody even tried to calculate how much of | that energy was produced by the wind or sun. | stormbrew wrote: | > nobody even tried to calculate how much of that energy | was produced by the wind or sun. | | I've definitely seen some analysis that does? But I don't | see how it matters. There's an opportunity cost there, | where using solar or wind power for something like | bitcoin could be better spend on something intrinsically | (rather than abstractly) productive, like heating/cooling | homes or whatever. | | And like, if suddenly it was decided magically somehow | that "all bitcoin must be produced with renewable energy" | I don't think the world would be made better by the | sudden rise in price of solar panels by 10x like has | happened with video cards. There's an inherent price | inflationary effect involved in anything that's capable | of producing 'free money'. | viscanti wrote: | But as soon as someone bought 51% of ETH and abused their | influence, their investment would go to zero. I'm not sure | I get the scenario where it's worthwhile for someone to | invest the amount it would take to get that significant of | an ownership percentage and then do something that would | just cause everyone else to leave and it to be worthless. | Maybe I'm missing something here. | ppf wrote: | Apparently, 51% attacks aren't enough to put off | investors, as ETC had 3 of them in one month last year. | keymone wrote: | Why would they publish that fact? You can pretend to be | as many independent validators as you like. | Grustaf wrote: | I see your point, but you could perhaps do what they are | doing to fiat currencies (and to our countries), exploit | them slowly. | EugeneOZ wrote: | To participate in the PoS "validation" network, you need | a minimal amount of tokens (coins). It raises the bar for | many people. | viscanti wrote: | Can't you delegate your ETH with other people you trust? | Isn't that an arbitrary decision that seems likely to | change (ETH is famous for making sure that people can run | a full node on an older and underpowered laptop)? | | Not sure how it changes the question I had anyway. The | point I was responding to suggested that people might buy | a bunch of ETH to influence the network. My question was | about how that could be economically viable because it | would take a very large investment to get any real | influence would cost more than what they could get out of | it (the value of the ETH they bought to influence the | network would go to zero). | jude- wrote: | Why buy the ETH, when stealing it out of buggy defi | contracts is so much cheaper? | exo762 wrote: | Why don't we setup a panel of PhDs who will vet all new | contracts? Sounds fresh. | jude- wrote: | Or, maybe we can step back from this whole discussion and | consider that maybe, just maybe, tying block-production | to coin-ownership in a blockchain with undecidable smart | contracts and a less-than-stellar security record is an | exercise in tempting fate. | EugeneOZ wrote: | It's not possible to abuse the power in this case. You | either use it or not. Either for your profit or not. | Vitalik made his choice, many other holders will do | approximately the same. | leishman wrote: | I'm mostly talking about governance. The biggest "users" and | governance decision makers of any PoS protocol will be | regulated financial institutions (e.g. Coinbase) operating on | behalf of end users. In theory Joe Schmoe can be a staker | from his garage, but in practice the only stakers that matter | will be regulated custodians (full disclosure, I am the CEO | of a regulated custodian) other than a handful of independent | ETH whales (like yourself). | | Yes there will be a number of custodians "competing" with | each other, but they will all largely operate under the same | regulatory jurisdiction (or at least cooperating | jurisdictions). If a PoS currency becomes mainstream, the | Federal Reserve (because regulated banks will be the largest | custodians) and Dept. of Treasury will have significant | influence on governance debates. | | The big issue here is that governance decisions in PoW | systems are split between miners (geographically | distributed), custodians (largely US based) and other | economic actors. In PoS systems _only_ custodians will call | the shots. That has very serious implications because | custodians are regulated financial institutions with | significant network effects, miners do not have this | centralizing force. | | Lastly, to actually become a miner in a PoS system requires | you to find or create a cheap source of energy and hardware | and maintain this advantage in perpetuity. This is external | to the system and can be done without paying off any existing | Bitcoin actor. In a PoS system you, by definition, need to | pay to play - you must purchase a sufficient stake of the | currency from an existing insider if you want to have a seat | at the table. It's the perfect insider game. Some may argue | it aligns incentives, but it also centralizes control. | | These systems all have different tradeoffs. Maybe some people | are ok with these tradeoffs for switching to PoS, but I'm | not. | grubles wrote: | Important to note that Vitalik massively gains from Ethereum | transitioning to Proof-of-Stake since he controls a large | percentage of total ETH due to premining it before the | project launched. | vbuterin wrote: | Isn't this just saying "the Ethereum proof of stake | transition benefits ETH holders"? | meowkit wrote: | Important to note that anyone who holds ETH gains if the | price goes up. | | I salute you Sherlock. | fredfoobar wrote: | looks like you missed "controls a large percentage of | total ETH" | hanniabu wrote: | Except he doesn't | grubles wrote: | Vitalik, just one person, owns billions in ETH. That is | the top 0.1%. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | And Satoshi, just one person, owns tens of billions in | BTC. That is the top 0.01%. | rawtxapp wrote: | Satoshi is not actively working to move Bitcoin to PoS | though. And for all practical purposes, his stash is as | good as gone. | yaa_minu wrote: | Satoshi mined every single one of it and anyone would | have been able to do same also he never sold his coins | and left the project early on to avoid having too much | control. Quite the opposite with Vitalik who on the other | hand premined his eth, has been selling them Ever since, | and continues to have significant control over ehereum. | fredfoobar wrote: | How can you verify that? currently everybody just listens | to what he has to say, when he decided to undo the DAO | hack, the original "immutable" chain just died off | because Vitalik put his vote on ETH. Sincerely, I really | wish he hadn't done that. | | (I'm guessing vbuterin is THE vbuterin here) | suikadayo wrote: | Vitalik didn't decide to undo the DAO hack, there was a | community vote (http://v1.carbonvote.com/), unlike | Satoshi who singlehandedly rolled back the chain in 2010 | after the 184 billion BTC hack. | | https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.msg9573#msg95 | 73 | fredfoobar wrote: | Satoshi fixed a bug (that reverted it back to the initial | rules everyone agreed upon). | | The DAO hack actually was an exploitation of the rules | that everyone agreed upon in the DAO, recursively calling | a function in your smart contract layer is not a bug. | | This brings us to an interesting topic, bugs are common | in software, | | * Should you make the protocol layer so complex that it | increases the probability of bugs being found, being | harder to understand and potentially grind the whole | system to a halt if a bug is found. | | OR | | * Should you break them up into layers where each layer | has one responsibility (base monetary layer, a smart | contract layer, a micro payments layer etc.) | fredfoobar wrote: | I want to add to this, some additional material, anyone | interested in the current state of DeFi can understand | this | | https://medium.com/coinmonks/demystify-the-dark-forest- | on-et... | grubles wrote: | Coinvotes in the context of massive insider premines is | completely useless. Of course a coinvote would reflect | "Yes to censoring the DAO hacker" because the DAO hacker | controlled more ETH than the top 3 current ETH accounts. | And the insiders stand to benefit the most from proof of | stake because it's a system designed to further enrich | the already rich. | hanniabu wrote: | Every single one of your comments up and down this thread | is incorrect misinformation and it's extremely tiring. | | 1) His address is public (which I'm sure you're well | aware and are intentionally ignoring so you can FUD): htt | ps://etherscan.io/address/0xab5801a7d398351b8be11c439e05c | ... | | 2) The blockchain wasn't mutated after the DAO hack. This | has been well reported. | | 3) "He" didn't decide to do anything, the Ethereum | community did. | | Stop with the endless BTC maxi talking points and | misinformation warfare. | grubles wrote: | Why did you edit out the actual address? | grubles wrote: | Vitalik in particular stands to gain from the system | switching to rewarding those with more wealth in the | system. | | And shockingly (/s) Vitalik allocated a disproportionate | stake relative to 99% of people. | | It's the rich getting richer but on the blockchain <tm>. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | You mean the same guy that just donated $1.2b to the | indian covid relief fund is just in it for the money? I | have a hard time believing that. | | Vitalik doesn't even own half a percent of the | circulating supply. | | And shockingly, you are a toxic bitcoin maximalist that | bought in early & massively profits from trying to | discredit Ethereum and pushing the "btc is a world | reserve currency" narrative. | | Fuck outta here. | yaa_minu wrote: | No, he donated an illiquid pump and dump shitcoin that | was sent to him by the scammers who created it. There's | little to praise about this. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | That, and a lot of his ETH. The illiquid shitcoins are | still worth a couple hundred million at the very least. | +$200k in ETH. | chrischattin wrote: | In Ethereum, you need 32 ETH, which is around ~$120k. That's | prohibitive a normal person. After EIP1559 goes into effect, | it's not out of the question that the price could rise 7x | given the power laws at play. What happens when the cost to | stake a node is $1M+? What happens 50 years from only the | very richest .00001% can afford to run a node? | | I'm concerned EIP1559 and PoS is a very short sighted | implementation that will move towards centralization of the | network. | | There should be a floating minimum, or have no minimum at all | to run a node. Not sure the exact tech solution, or I'd be | submitting a pull request :). | miohtama wrote: | You can do pooled staking with smaller amounts, with little | bit lost security: | | https://capitalgram.com/posts/ethereum-2.0-staking-and- | stake... | meowkit wrote: | 32 ETH was set when it cost much less. | | That can always be changed if the number or validators is | not sufficient to decentralize the network. | chrischattin wrote: | That's was my point. The ability to stake shouldn't be | based on an arbitrary and temporary exchange rate. What | happens if USD/ETH is $0.0001? $1B? It should still work | regardless of the exchange rate. | | Current implementation depends on the exchange rate and | creates an incentive structure towards centralization. | exo762 wrote: | > Current implementation depends on the exchange rate | | No, it does not. You are staking ETH, not USD. | Essentially, you are staking a percentage of all ETH, | percentage capped from below. | fredfoobar wrote: | Yeah yeah, everything can always be changed in the | future. | roskelld wrote: | Genuine question: Who decides that? | fredfoobar wrote: | When there is a prominent founder, everyone usually tends | to defer to them (in this case, Vitalik, see what | happened to ETC vs ETH). | hanniabu wrote: | There are discussions to lower the ETH collateral | requirements. Right now there is no validator cap so that | will lead to issues. The goal is to first set a max | validator cap with a rotating validator pool. However, | there's still higher priority items to complete first like | the merge, unlocking withdrawals, and likely also sharding. | Given that, it's liking like this change would come 2 years | from now unless priorities change (and assuming there's | consensus for such a change). | eyezick wrote: | I'd further add on to say PoS has the benefit of being able | to eliminate bad actors unilaterally. You can't stop anyone | from attacking a PoW chain over and over again. Attacking a | PoS chain is much riskier as the attacker's stakes are held | on chain and are at the mercy of the community who uses the | network. | rawtxapp wrote: | If the community forks to void an attacker's coins, that | creates a very bad precedent. It already happened with the | dao hack (which was pretty bad to begin with), but if it | keeps happening, why would you trust that blockchain. | ZephyrBlu wrote: | PoS doesn't fork the chain, you just lose your stake if | you stake malicious blocks: | https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus- | mechanisms... | jude- wrote: | Why does the attacker need to hold or buy any coins? All | the attacker has to do to wreck havoc is prevent quorum | from being reached. This can be done by knocking validators | offline (which is a slashable penalty), or hacking | validators and making them slash themselves, or hacking an | exchange or two in order to amass control of 33% or more of | the voting power. | eyezick wrote: | The point is it mitigates the on-chain attack surface | which is still prevalent on PoW. Off-chain attacks are | still possible for all consensus mechanism. | jude- wrote: | What on-chain attack surface? The only way to permanently | knock a PoW chain offline is to consistently out-mine | everyone else. In PoS, once you lose BFT quorum (1/3 of | all votes), it's game over. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | I really wish the UN could get together and implement a global | treaty on a revenue neutral carbon tax. The only reason energy is | as cheap as it is right now is because we're not properly pricing | in the externalities of environmental damage. | | This would immediately make unproductive energy use ( _cough POW | crypto_ cough) a lot less profitable, without the government | having to come in and set prices and regs for every little thing. | colinmhayes wrote: | The UN doesn't actually have any power though. Even if all the | UN members agree to sanction countries that don't implement the | tax there are countries like North Korea and Iran that are | already fully sanctioned. These countries would immediately | take full advantage of the comparative advantage given to them. | PoW mining for example would end up being completely | centralized in these countries. | Taek wrote: | I agree that we should try to implement global | fines/taxes/fees/whatever on the externalities of society (be | it electricity, manufacturing, dumping, litter, etc). | | I disagree that it would have a significant impact on PoW. PoW | is already one of the cleanest energy industries in the world, | and it's also entirely price insensistive. PoW is going to | consume billions of dollars of electricity per year at any | price. An external tax of 50% would cut energy use by nearly a | third, but it wouldn't do any more than that. | | And I should add, PoW would be absolutely happy with such a fee | in place. It really doesn't care how much electricity costs, it | only cares that an attacker would also have to pay the same | price. | fredfoobar wrote: | Yeah, nope. | | Consider the amount of energy wasted right now and also in | similar "industries". | | https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-uses-less-than-... | tenacious_tuna wrote: | To me, this says those other "similar 'industries'" should | *also* be regulated in this way. We shouldn't excuse bitcoin | just because there's other worse offenders, we should address | the entire sector. I'll phrase it this way: do high- | frequency-trading and coin-mining contribute positively to | the world as a whole? Are they producing goods that improve | the standard of living on a global scale, tangible or | otherwise? Are those good worth the negative environment and | social impact their production causes? | | Assuming HFT/coin mining do indeed contribute in these ways, | are there less energy-intensive solutions that could produce | the same or a similar effect? | | I think it's completely reasonable for there to be | regulations that limit the global impact of activities (e.g. | emissions, global warming, chip shortage) for the good of the | general population, especially in relation to how much | tangible good they produce. That's the whole point of | governments and regulations to begin with; see also, things | like leaded fuels, or asbestos, or trust-busting. | fredfoobar wrote: | Sorry, it was more for your "opinion" on PoW, not the | carbon tax. | | > This would immediately make unproductive energy use | (cough POW crypto cough) a lot less profitable, | | You seem to have just one target in mind that would get | hit. Clearly you haven't analyzed the full extent of a | "carbon tax" and your following statement seemed very | naive. That said, I'm all FOR carbon taxes, it is actually | good for Bitcoin and the world. | | I don't think there will be a LOT of PoW cryptos, there | will be one (or two at most) winner and the others will use | a variation of Proof of Proof (by saving state on a PoW | chain). I also think that the energy usage curve will | plateau soon-ish and energy usage will be somewhat constant | or start trending down gradually (as the rewards are | tapering off too). | wing-_-nuts wrote: | You replied to the wrong guy, but I got you :^) | | I have no problem with _all_ carbon intensive industries | paying for their pollution. I think it would be silly for | governments to go around mandating and regulating every | little thing that uses energy. Simply tax at the source. | | Will that make my power bill go up? Yeah. Will that mean | it costs more to fill my tank? Yeah. Whatever. I'm | totally fine with that. If it's revenue neutral I'll be | getting most of it back on my income taxes anyway. Bonus, | this now lets me reduce my carbon footprint and pay less | taxes. | | TLDR: Want less carbon? Tax carbon! | fredfoobar wrote: | Thanks, A carbon tax will be a boon for stranded/wasted | energy as well, I wouldn't see why a bitcoin mining | operation can't use better sources of energy to mine and | be more profitable. It's based on consuming electricity | for starters (not natural gas), unlike say ICE vehicles | which can't switch to another source of energy. | missedthecue wrote: | The world financial and banking systems moves literal | quadrillions of dollars around the world on an annual basis. | nmz wrote: | While true, this also gives jobs to millions of people, | unlike crypto, which is comparatively less. | fredfoobar wrote: | You're somehow implying that bitcoin can't do that, how'd | you come to that conclusion. | missedthecue wrote: | Bitcoin already uses a very high percentage of the total | energy that the global financial services industry does, | and it moves a very small amount of money around to show | for it. If the bitcoin network were to move quadrillions | of dollars per year, it would probably have to use more | energy than we are capable of producing. | | And bitcoin cannot offer insurance, or retirement and | estate planning, it cannot take my company public or help | me raise money on the bond market. It cannot facilitate a | repo transaction on my real estate portfolio, and it | cannot offer me a mortgage to purchase a home. | fredfoobar wrote: | > Bitcoin already uses a very high percentage of the | total energy that the global financial services industry | does, and it moves a very small amount of money around to | show for it. | | Citation needed. | | Citation that counters that perception: | https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-uses-less- | than-... | | > If the bitcoin network were to move quadrillions of | dollars per year, it would probably have to use more | energy than we are capable of producing | | Sigh, this gets spouted like it's the truth by people who | don't understand the simple fact that the energy usage in | bitcoin is NOT used on transactions! and it DOES NOT | scale with the number of transactions!. [1] | | > And bitcoin cannot offer insurance, or retirement and | estate planning, it cannot take my company public or help | me raise money on the bond market. It cannot facilitate a | repo transaction on my real estate portfolio, and it | cannot offer me a mortgage to purchase a home. | | These are the usecases for subsequent layers, and there | are services popping up for these already! bitcoin is a | relatively young system that is purely community driven. | | [1]: https://www.coindesk.com/frustrating-maddening-all- | consuming... | libertine wrote: | I know this is a pressing matter, and that has relevance for | itself, but after the whole Elon Musk thing it just turns this | into a reply to his tweet, where so many cryptos folks were | spamming "we use less energy then bitcoin! choose us! we're open | to talk!" | | Which in the lights of the recent events sounds like: "pump us | this time around!" | | Makes you question: when would be a good time to address this, if | they can't time travel to the day before Elon posted the tweet? | | And I don't know the answer to that. Was this too soon? Well if | they want to take the ride of Elon controversy, I don't think so. | Is that a good thing? Who knows. | nashashmi wrote: | It is a reply but it was also well known that they were looking | to improve with a proof of scope concept. This will require | 100x more storage space in place of compute power. | | The market is wondering what will happen next. So ether | published their progress. I just want to know how realistic are | they with their schedule. | throwitaway1235 wrote: | Carbon phobia is a mental disorder. | TechBro8615 wrote: | I was fairly into the space in 2014-2016 but stopped paying | attention the last few years. It seems like lots of theorized | applications actually exist and have a proof-of-concept now. | | If I'm building a marketplace business in 2021, where I want to | be "crypto-first" instead of relying on PayPal and Stripe | Connect, where do I start? | | The marketplace sells access to resources with an off-chain ACL | system. It facilitates trades between resource sellers and | buyers. | | I assume I want a smart contract between buyer/seller to record | resource grants on chain, which the access layer checks as a | source of truth. | | But if I were to do this on Ethereum, the gas fees would be | really expensive. I've heard about Polygon and "optimistic roll- | up." Is this a viable solution? | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Polygon & "optimistic roll-ups" are generally referred to as | L2. In general this part of the etherum ecosystem is just | starting up and the only one that has seen much adoption so far | is Polygon (which did 4M tx yesterday & still has low fees). | | Using an L2 system will mean that your user will need to be | using that specific L2 system as well, but the UX doesn't seem | so bad (at least for ETH -> polygon, and for the cryptocurrecny | space so far). | | ETH 2.0 will reduce gas fees somewhat on the mainchain, but | it's fairly obvious that there's huge demand, the sharding that | ETH 2.0 will do is create 1 shard for execution & 63 for data | only. Most L2 systems will mostly use the data shards, so we | appear to be heading towards an L2 future. | | In short if I were building a company in the space I'd be | looking at deploying both on the mainchain (L1) and on a L2 | system, but prioritize the L2 system. Unfortunately we may end | up in a world where there are dozens or more L2 systems and | either the users or the companies have to pay the cost to hop | between them. | TarasBob wrote: | This is a great solution called zk-rollup (zero knowledge | rollup) https://zksync.io/ | | It is just as secure as the base chain (unlike polygon) and has | low fees and has been live for the past few months. This is a | perfect solution to simple payments. | | The difference between optimistic rollups and zero knowledge | rollups is that you can't deploy arbitrary smart contracts to | zk rollup, it only supports a limited set of use cases, such as | simple payments for now. Read more here | https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/05/rollup.html | hanniabu wrote: | Also zkSync has general EVM compatibility coming in a few | months | randomopining wrote: | What coin does zk-rollup use? or just base Ethereum? | TarasBob wrote: | It can use any coin. You can send ETH or any token, | including stable coins such as DAI or USDC. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | the current solutions do 'native fees' which means you pay | the fee in whatever you are sending. This can't really last | because I could create SPAM coin with 1B marketcap and | overload the network with it. | | IIRC they'll eventually create their own native token when | their EVM compatible rollup is out. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | As a side note: | | If you as a reader are interested in math & crypto the stuff | being done in the zero knowledge space w.r.t. | cryptocurrencies is really cool regardless of your opinion on | cryptocurrencies in general. | random_kris wrote: | If you want to use microlayments, payment processing checkout | the btcpayserver and Bitcoin lightning Network. | tootie wrote: | Realistically, you can't. Unless you want to be a very early | adopter, no mainstream businesses are accepting payments in | crypto. Techwise, Coinbase has a thing: | https://commerce.coinbase.com/ | | But I've absolutely never seen it in the wild. | jaggs wrote: | Um...that's not strictly the case though? | https://blog.bitgo.com/24-major-businesses-accepting- | bitcoin... | | (Tesla has recanted 'for now'). | Ono-Sendai wrote: | I use coinbase to accept crypto payments for virtual property | here: https://substrata.info/parcel_auction_list | wbc wrote: | Check out Solana if you want lower fees | throwaway-8c93 wrote: | Low fees - but only once you're in the crypto ecosystem. | | If you're after dollars or euros, the on-ramp and off-ramp at | exchanges adds a comparable, if not higher layer of fees than | existing payment mechanisms, kind of defeating the whole | purpose. | de_keyboard wrote: | > If I'm building a marketplace business in 2021, where I want | to be "crypto-first" instead of relying on PayPal and Stripe | Connect, where do I start? | | Unless you are building a dark web market, why would you want | to? It will be more convenient for the vast majority of users | to pay with card or PayPal. | selfhoster11 wrote: | One reason that comes to mind is trying to be the change they | want to see in the world. Cards and Paypal already have heaps | of adoption. | svarog-run wrote: | The end user won't see a change in their cards though | notsureaboutpg wrote: | I believe there are some use cases. Think of a government | which does not allow currency conversion to more stable | currencies in a place where volatility or inflation is very | high. In that situation, it might be worth adopting a crypto- | first approach, no? | bhandziuk wrote: | But doesn't crypto have very high volatility? | wmf wrote: | For example, Reserve is a stablecoin designed for markets | like Venezuela where it's "illegal" to use USD or EUR. | tratax wrote: | I'm pretty sure they will make all the stablecoins | illegal as well. The fact that they cant really enforce | it .. thats something else. | svarog-run wrote: | Normal citizens won't need 3rd party stablecoins when | cbdcs are available | 533474 wrote: | why does it have to be a dark-web market if blockchain | payments are first class citizens? I suppose the general | population isn't ready for decentralised payments yet or do | you have another reason for such use-case generalization? | _jjkk wrote: | There are still many barriers to that "first class" status, | taxes are mentioned most often. | | Taxes are paid in fiat. Holding non-stablecoins would add | even more of a tax headache because you'd have to track | capital gain/loss as you enter/exit fiat for taxes / fees / | vendors that don't accept crypto | | Also the fact that general adoption has been slow so far | may be a sign that there is not enough obvious value added | for the average person to consider using crypto over fiat. | svarog-run wrote: | who would pay with non-stablecoins though? The oath seems | to be cbdcs that are compatible with public smart | contract blockchains | AlexandrB wrote: | There's also the risk that stablecoins aren't actually | stable but just claim to be such: | https://www.coindesk.com/tether-first-reserve- | composition-re... | oskarth wrote: | Also see Ethereum is green: https://our.status.im/ethereum-is- | green/ | a-dub wrote: | proof of work is a massive waste, it's true, but it does serve a | one time valuable purpose: it bootstraps the value of the tokens | by having people make real investments with existing currency and | hardware in their creation. beyond that, it's literally insane, | it only works when there's a very competitive race to burn as | much energy as possible. | | however, once the value of those tokens is established (as is | true for most of the big cryptocurrencies today), there is really | no compelling reason not to emulate the proof of work block | lottery with a proof of stake block lottery. there is absolutely | no reason why people can't lock up digital currency funds long | term in exchange for share in a 10 minute lottery rather than | lock up funds in hardware mining investments and associated power | supplies for them. | | i've been watching ethereum's progress on this with interest, and | fully expect with time that bitcoin will follow. | randomopining wrote: | Doesn't POS incentivize oligarchal collusion? | a-dub wrote: | no more than PoW. they're both essentially lotteries that | hand out share/influence based on capital investment. | | PoS, done right, simply emulates PoW. | | what does PoS done right look like? | | "miners" lock up funds for 1-2 years. the amount of funds | they lock up determines how likely they are to win the block | lottery. the block lottery, and locking up funds for entries | within it, remain decentralized. | | the challenge is running a decentralized lottery with | distributed consensus. this is hard, but i don't think | impossible. | amarant wrote: | I'm not saying 99.95% of energy was completely wasted... | | I'm saying the last 0.05% was too | HugoDaniel wrote: | Oh, I fear that this might be on the route to Ethereum- | Classic-V2. | | Vitalik and core team wake up sulked and there we go.. | mrfusion wrote: | How do existing Pow coins get transferred to this? | exo762 wrote: | Whole chain is changing the rules. For block N-1 and earlier | blocks - fork choice rule inspects amount of work. For block N | and later, fork choice rule is one of https://beaconcha.in/ | tylercubell wrote: | Algorand has been Proof of Stake for years (2019 MainNet launch) | and it's actually carbon-negative [1]. It's a shame more people | don't know about it. Its founder is a Turing-award-winning MIT | professor (Silvio Micali) who solved the blockchain trilemma [2] | with the Pure Proof of Stake consensus algorithm. The tech is | leaps and bounds ahead of other cryptos. | | [1]: | https://www.algorand.com/resources/news/carbon_negative_anno... | | [2]: https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/silvio-micali-lex- | fr... | lancemurdock wrote: | i'll check back on this coin when its tokenomics have improved. | I am not interested in something with 70% of the total supply | not yet in circulation. | miohtama wrote: | The first proof-of-stake coin was PeerCoin from 2012. Also | Algorand is not leaps ahead of the competiton. More in my | presentation: | | https://capitalgram.com/posts/history-of-cryptocurrencies/ | tylercubell wrote: | Would it be reasonable to assert pure proof of stake is less | risky than delegated proof of stake? I don't claim to be an | expert in crypto but from what I've read it seems like pure | proof of stake is a leap ahead of other consensus algorithms | in terms of security, energy usage, etc. | smaddox wrote: | I just read about it. It seems highly susceptible to disruption | by a minority stake, via the birthday paradox. | | If only a fraction of the stake holders are validators at any | given time, but the set of 1000 validators is selected randomly | from token holders, then all you technically need is 1000 | tokens (or more) and given enough time you will be selected as | the only validator, right? You can then validate a fraudulent | transaction, breaking security. | | Now perhaps the amount of time it would take for this to occur | would be longer than the heat death of the universe if you only | have 1000 tokens, but at the very least, this substantially | reduces the stake required to mount such an attack below the | 51% required in a PoW system, right? | RhodoGSA wrote: | thats why currently the minimum stake amount is 32 eth. Also, | you'd learn you were the validator for the cycle only when | you are awarded eth. If you try to push through a false | transaction you can get slashed (Losing some of your stake). | all in all, makes it impractical at best. | mtlynch wrote: | That sounded interesting but I couldn't understand from the | links how a blockchain can be carbon negative: | | > _To achieve a carbon-negative network, Algorand and | ClimateTrade will implement a sustainability oracle which will | notarize Algorand's carbon footprint on-chain for each epoch (a | set amount of blocks). With its advanced smart contracts, | Algorand will then lock the equivalent amount of carbon credit | as an ASA (Algorand Standard Asset) into a green treasury so | that its protocol keeps running as carbon-negative._ | | I'm pretty familiar with the basics of cryptocurrency and | blockchains, but the above paragraph makes almost no sense to | me. | [deleted] | fumblebee wrote: | It's times like this I ask myself whether I'm slow, or | whether the text in question is needlessly complex. | | My pessimistic side suggests this could be purposeful | obfuscation of implementation by using complex language. No | one will question their solution if no one can understand it. | | On the other hand, I'm a big proponent of the Algorand | project and based on the general quality of their work (the | tech, docs, tutorials, etc.), I'd be surprised if there were | anything malignant going on. | nscalf wrote: | They're going to buy carbon credits to offset the carbon | emissions derived from using the network, then lock them away | so they can't trade them off at a later time. That is | definitely some marketing lingo tied around "we buy carbon | credits". | hanniabu wrote: | > It's a shame more people don't know about it | | It's a shame people don't understand that there's multiple | aspects. Ethereum is much more decentralized, secure, have more | dev mindshare, better community, tooling, and ecosystem. Let's | also not forget that Algorand is powered by and centralized | around team-run nodes. | capableweb wrote: | I don't think the initial "It's a shame more people..." is | meant to make people forget about Ethereum. I think it's to | signal that not a lot of people know about Algorand, and | doesn't anything about other projects. | | Since you seem to indicate that you know what you're talking | about, care enough to make a proper argument? You say | Ethereum is more decentralized, secure and better tooling, | but you never actually make a cohesive argument, only giving | a list of "reasons" without any backing. I'm mostly | interested in why you think Ethereum is "more secure" than | Algorand, and what threat model are you considering here | even? | | > Algorand is powered by and centralized around team-run | nodes | | Hm, I run a Algorand node but I don't work for the Algorand | team. What do you mean that Algorand is run by team-run nodes | really? How do you even know which node belongs to who in the | first place? | webinvest wrote: | Ethereum 2.0 isn't expected to be released until 2022, 2023, or | 2024* | | If you're looking for something that works now, you can take a | look at the 3rd most popular cryptocurrency on Coinbase, Stellar | Lumens (XLM). It sure is energy efficient. | | More details here: | https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellar/comments/nbqfey/since_co2_e... | | Sources: *Coinbase, Stakewise | gpsx wrote: | Wouldn't it be nice if energy were free, and caused no | environmental damage? Well, how about cheaper and cleaner. | Whether you think spending energy on coin mining is worthwhile or | not, energy is required to do any work (by definition), so to | feed our innovations, easy energy is important (and not evil). We | will need to work on that. | kojoru wrote: | Question from someone relatively clueless: Does that mean that | NFTs also will use negligible amount of electricity once that's | completely gone through? | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | Yes. Any action performed in the network will consume 99.95% | less energy after this change has gone through. | suikadayo wrote: | Basically. Also, it's already possible to do NFTs with | negligible amount using Immutable X layer 2 scaling solution on | Ethereum - it's just that they seem to be doing it only for | Gods Unchained right now. There will be even more other NFT | scaling solutions. | web3nix wrote: | Many people are talking about PoW vs PoS here. | | Nobody tends to mention that in PoS a hostile takeover by a | majority stake can just have its staked coins 'forked' out by the | community. The goal of PoS is to have actors held responsible for | their actions. | | In my mind this is much more powerful than PoW because surely | hostile majority mining power can't simply be forked away (sure | you could change the hashing algorithm but even then the attacker | could just move on to a different chain with no real consequences | of their actions no?). | | Interested to hear what other people think. | focom wrote: | So with PoS, we recreate a system where a few rich pool have | decision over the network. Can someone enlighten me on how this | is different from the current fiat system? | je_bailey wrote: | So I'm more familiar with how Cardano and Polkadot do their POS | rather than Ethereums. In Cardano since the entry level | requirement to operate a stake pool is much smaller than it is | to do something like Bitcoin mining, it creates a larger number | of stake pools. There's also a soft limit on the size of the | stake pool that encourages people to spread out their | commitment so no one pool gets to large.So at least in the | existing POS systems it seems to be working quite well. I'm | going to be interested to see how it shakes out in Ethereum | because they have to commit their funds. Which is in a way a | burden.The more you put into the system for staking the less | that you can use. | spopejoy wrote: | How do they prevent impersonation? There's no way a | cryptosystem can prove that two different people actually | have two different keys. If I want to pwn Cardano/Polkadot, | don't I just need to run a bunch of different staking keys? | je_bailey wrote: | Looking at Cardano. There are currently 2,497 staking pools | which are staking 72% percent of all Ada that is out there. | Which is about 23 billion coins staked. So if you owned 12 | billion cardano and set up 188 pools to hold all of it, yes | you would control the majority of the network. | loceng wrote: | Except with fiat system we can at least elect who the | government is. | gspr wrote: | No, they can't enlighten you. They've bought into a cult, and | if they started considering the fundamental question of how | this is better than fiat currency, the cognitive dissonance | would hurt. | mustafa_pasi wrote: | In truth nobody knows. People hypothesize that recreating | financial products on top of Ethereum (or Polkadot or | Cordano) will result in competitive offerings. But it is hard | to predict what will actually happen. | ArkanExplorer wrote: | Whenever you have a system where it costs several dollars to | carry out a transaction, it will always be inferior to fiat. | | We could bring microtransactions to the web, and replace a lot | of advertising, if transaction costs were zero. | meowface wrote: | Here's a comparison of PoS and PoW by Vitalik Buterin (creator | of Ethereum): | https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html | | Obviously he's biased in favor of PoS for various reasons, but | I think it's a worthy read. | Vanclief wrote: | It is a system where you have skin in the game, the more skin | in the game you have, the more power you have. Think it like a | democracy where you are voting with your wallet. | | The main difference with the fiat world is that with Ethereum | you have transparency, and there is no corruption. You can't | just bribe a politician to enact a rule you want. Everything | that happens in the network is recorded permanently, and rules | are not a suggestion, but a practical reality that can't be | circumvented. | briefcomment wrote: | What exactly do Ether holders vote on in this scenario? | Changes to the protocol? Is that process highly transparent | and easily accessible? | DennisP wrote: | There's no on-chain governance like that. Some other | blockchains do it but Ethereum devs are skeptical. The | upgrade process will keep working like it does now. | jayd16 wrote: | That's called a plutocracy not a democracy. | zionic wrote: | PoS is more equitable than endgame PoW. With PoS anyone with | any amount of capital can secure the network. Even $10 can via | decentralized stake pools. | | With endgame PoW only the rich can acquire mining ASICs and | locate them in cheap/free (stolen) electricity zones. The vast | majority of the world is entirely excluded from PoW mining BTC | because the cost of electricity in their region makes mining | unprofitable. | contravariant wrote: | Governments don't typically own >50% of the current money | supply. | sergioisidoro wrote: | Current system is no different, as the hash power is related to | how many computers you can afford to buy. | | This doesn't fix the problem but it does fix the environmental | impact. | pinkybanana wrote: | No, it is very different because in practice the pools and | exchanges are totally separate entities. With PoS the biggest | holders will be exchanges and therefore exchanges will | control the cryptocurrency. With PoS there will be clearly | less decentralization compared to PoW. | micropresident wrote: | Also, pools are not miners. | PaywallBuster wrote: | For some reason China seems to concentrate more than 50% of | hashing rate due to "big money" coming in and building up | huge data centers while using the dirty local energy | available. | | How's that decentralized. | | The times of home mining with CPU/GPUs are long gone | doomroot wrote: | Because the only threat from a 51% attack is rewriting a | couple blocks until they recognized as attackers and they | get kicked off the network because bitcoin users actually | validate blocks. In a PoS system there is an incentive | for large stakeholders to increase block sizes. 1. It | increases the usability of the network which increases | the marketcap. 2. It pushes out smaller stakers who can't | afford to validate anymore because tx throughput becomes | too high. If everyday people can't validate the chain how | can they fork it if they think the current block | validators are acting against their interests? The ether | account set will be far too large. So they'll start from | scratch. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | >because bitcoin users actually validate blocks | | so do Ethereum users. | | >In a PoS system there is an incentive for large | stakeholders to increase block sizes. | | this doesn't work because of Ethereum's social contract, | just like it wouldn't work with Bitcoin. | | Just because you stake a lot of ETH doesn't mean you | suddenly have unilateral power to increase block sizes. | There is a thing called consensus, and the entire | community needs to achieve it to implement changes. Good | luck trying to convince the community that bigger blocks | that make it harder for small users to validate the chain | is a good idea. | yokem55 wrote: | Except the barrier for entry on building a stake pooling | operation is relatively low, so there will be a substantial | amount of competition in the space over time. Coinbase for | instance is taking a 25% commission on the staking | earnings, so anyone who can come in under that, or offer | options in terms of liquidity on the staked funds that can | be reinvested, will attract a good amount of the share of | stakes. There is even a fully decentralized pooling system | that is nearing release. | fastball wrote: | In order to be a validator in PoS (at least Ethereum's | implementation) you need to lock up the funds, so not sure | how an exchange would be particularly well-suited for that | - they need to keep most of the coins on their books liquid | so that the customers who actually own them can quickly | trade them. | pinkybanana wrote: | You don't seem to understand how exchanges work. Locking | the funds won't be problem to exchanges. Most of the | funds just sit dormant in cold storage for long periods | of times. For withdrawals you always use most recent | deposits and you minimize the transfers between hot and | cold wallet. | fastball wrote: | I don't know anyone who keeps large amounts of ETH | sitting unused on an exchange. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Just take a look at any of the account tables. Most of it | is in exchange cold wallets. These exchanges will be | staking against your interests. It has happened before, | it will happen again. Just say no to PoS. | fastball wrote: | But that's only because Ethereum is currently on PoW, so | (naive) people don't care. | | But as soon the switch happens, people will want to be | staking their ETH in pools that will earn them money. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Yeah, in exchanges. Which will ignore the wishes of the | actual currency owners, just like happens today. A vast, | vast majority of staking users will not have the required | 32 ETH for self-staking, and will be delegating this to | third parties. PoS gives power to the exchanges, which | should not have this power. | fastball wrote: | It only gives exchanges power if users _choose_ to give | them power, which is exactly how a decentralized | democratized currency is supposed to work. | pinkybanana wrote: | The difference to PoW is that the exchanges can do the | staking with very minimal effort. I would guess majority | of exchanges give the staking results to customers while | taking some % fee. | | I don't have any problem with this in general, I don't | think it is wrong to do business like that. But I | personally prefer PoW because it looks like it naturally | separates the mining work from exchanges, creating more | decentralized economy. | doomroot wrote: | Right.. they keep them in secure web browser wallets... ( | ballofrubber wrote: | PoW is a lot different, as burning real world resources | (energy) brings sell-pressure to miners, whereas PoS only has | cost of locking the funds. This means that regardless of the | size of your "operation" cost scales very flat. | | PoS also does not come with the property of innovation and | disruption. In a PoW (especially ASIC-based) system you will | find new ways to outperform your peers and disrupt old | players. | | PoW incentivices cheap energy in developing countries more | than anything before. It is the fix for environmental | problems. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _PoW incentivices cheap energy in developing countries | more than anything before. It is the fix for environmental | problems._ | | That can only become true if and when governments decide to | suddenly ban PoW, so that all that cheap energy services | anything other than crypto. I don't think it works as an | argument in favor of PoW, for the same reason "we're only | spreading knowledge of chemistry and democratizing process | engineering" doesn't work as an argument in favor of drug | cartels. | | Also, 'SR2Z is right - "cheap energy in developing | countries" == coal. | swiley wrote: | PoS burns capital in the sense that it could be invested in | something else (I was looking at staking coins but it | doesn't come near the yield I get from my 401k for example, | which is effectively providing unsecured debt to finance | innovation.) | | IMO: it's much better than PoW as long as it doesn't end up | too centralized. I'm not too sure how I feel about the | minimum amount required to stake though, that seems a bit | odd. | SR2Z wrote: | This is a spicy take, not least because the cheapest source | of energy in the developing world (i.e. the one without | environmental regulations) tends to be coal. | gruez wrote: | The difference is that with PoW you constantly have to do | "stuff" (ie. buying equipment, running datacenters) or get | left behind. PoS on the other hand you can just sit on your | ass and wait for the $$$ to roll in. | sergioisidoro wrote: | Good point. But I still don't understand how it changes the | premise presented by the comment, of "The one who has the | money controls the network". | pinkybanana wrote: | There are lots of participants in the global economy who | has money. The idea is that you have enough different | people with competing incentives. PoW provides incentive | model which separates different actors (pools, exchanges | etc) and also at the same time doesn't seem to lead to | monopolies. | meowkit wrote: | Can you explain what "sitting on your ass" means? I thought | you had to maintain a validator? | sendbitcoins wrote: | Exchanges like CoinBase will stake for you. You as an | individual don't have to do anything. | G3rn0ti wrote: | An earn interest, right? So I could lend Coinbase some of | my ether for staking and they pay me interest in return. | So PoS could give us an interesting investment | possibility. | sendbitcoins wrote: | Well, its not called interest, its called 'staking | rewards'. You can also earn interest lending out your | ETH, but that's a different process and entails | counterparty risk. | tux3 wrote: | Yes and no. Keeping up with the day to day details is | something you delegate at some point. PoW is also "just" an | investment, with extra steps to set things up. | narush wrote: | This is not the case. In Ethereum's PoS model, you put | value at risk when you sign up to be a validator. You have | to lock funds up to play a part in consensus. | | This means that if you start acting maliciously, or even | just not fulfilling your responsibilities (e.g. you let | your computer go offline), then you are punished for it | (depending on the severity of your offense, obviously). | | Aka, you can't just wait for the money to roll in. You have | to run a node, you have to verify blocks, and you have to | make sure you're acting in the best interest of the network | + keeping things running smoothly. | micropresident wrote: | This is largely done by software. If you are not mucking | around with the software, there is zero risk. | secondcoming wrote: | Who gets these funds? This is beginning to sound | suspicious. | thebean11 wrote: | The other actors in the network running validators. | | Specifically you are punished for: | | - Being offline (the penalty is small, and roughly equal | to the rewards earned by being online | | - Running the same validator twice (huge penalty, be | careful!) | secondcoming wrote: | Are the funds paid in fiat or ETH? | bidirectional wrote: | ETH of course, this is an automated part of how the | system works, not some behind-the-scenes deal based on | reputation or whatever. | f38zf5vdt wrote: | This is something I don't understand. You lock the funds | on a chain and you lose them on the chain. But what | happens if two groups decide to split the chain, and both | chains lock the opposing chains funds? It seems like | there's no way to prevent social forks in the longer | term, just a lot of hand-waving about that if the current | social contract stays in place, some minority malicious | group will be punished for secession. | | It would seem that if some participants on the network | can't abide by their national laws while running some | contracts, the outcome would be inevitable. And then you | would just get multiple chains running under multiple | governments. This seems like a reinvention of the | international banking system? | nightpool wrote: | Ethereum has already proven that there's no way to | prevent social forks, correct? The DAO incident comes to | mind as a very controversial instance, but there are | others. Ultimately, it's up to the individual nodes to | decide what code they want to run and what rules they | want to use to decide what the chain is. I'm not sure I | understand how PoS makes this worse (although maybe | there's something I'm missing) | f38zf5vdt wrote: | Right, but then the model is not trustless but is instead | a complex implementation of the current system of | international banking. Maybe I don't understand the point | of cryptocurrencies. Most applications of cryptography | are trustless. | nightpool wrote: | "Trustless" is relative. In this case, the protocols are | still trustless--the trust lies one meta level up, where | you decide which protocols to use. In this situation, | there are network effects as well--you can come up with | your own perfect protocol in a vacuum, but if nobody uses | it, who cares? | | In this case, you can think about it as one person saying | "I think it's a good idea if we do this" and a few | hundred other people saying "I agree with you". | Obviously, they're more likely to agree with the first | person if they have some sort of institutional | legitimacy. But is that "trust"? That's very different | from the definition of "trust" that's generally used in | protocol design. | pamplemoose wrote: | I found the following article to be helpful in | understanding some of these processes | | https://haseebq.com/ethereum-is-now-unforkable-thanks-to- | def... | nightpool wrote: | This article makes a good point about the fragility of | DeFi, but it fails to demonstrate that the broader | Ethereum community cares enough about DeFi to let it | influence their decisions. It makes a general, hand-wavey | gesture to other parts of ETH ("All websites, interfaces, | block explorers, and wallets ultimately point to the | majority chain. Game operators like CryptoKitties lock | their D-ETH contracts so as not to confuse their | users."), but it fails to justify this point--it already | says "a civil war is brewing" and that individual | developers (presumably including CryptoKitties) would | have reason to support one or the other. | | So while this article is a (good?) argument for why all | DeFi operators must follow USDC, it fails to make the | case for why anyone else should care about the fate of | centralized stablecoins. Maybe these reasons are obvious! | But I don't know them. | ivanbakel wrote: | What stops chain forks to begin with? This isn't a flaw | that's limited to PoS. | gruez wrote: | I think GP's point is that in the event of a fork, in a | PoW fork miners have to choose to either mine for chain A | or chain B, whereas with PoS stakers can choose to stake | for both. This is bad, because either side can use their | staking power to disrupt the other chain, by doing double | spend attacks or refusing to confirm transactions. On top | of that, staking is free to do, so you don't even have to | expend resources to pull off such an attack, whereas with | mining you have to spend real world resources to pull it | off. | nightpool wrote: | Thank you, this is a good description of the issue! This | does seem like a complicated problem to solve, but I'm | not necessarily convinced that one set of incentives is | always worse or better--aren't there some situations | where you do want to import the existing set of "stakes" | to gain adoption? | shawnz wrote: | This is the point of slashing, to prevent the same coins | from being staked on multiple chains at the same time. To | stake you need to issue proofs of the stake which can be | used to slash you on other chains. | Tzs7GVei wrote: | Why would you want to prevent social forks? Social forks | are not only good, they are the killer feature of crypto. | They are what makes crypto truly consensual and | voluntaryistic (if that's a word). As for the problem of | national laws, I hope that can be alleviated with better | privacy, so people can safely run a node even in | violation of laws. | wbc wrote: | Vitalik talked about splits like this, read | https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html | f38zf5vdt wrote: | I don't think that helps my comprehension of this. Unless | I am mistaken, it seems like a long winded essay on how | cryptocurrencies are simply social constructs. | Polygator wrote: | Yeah, but obviously the "stuff" has led to a Red Queen | problem, with the outcome being incredible waste of | electricity and computing resources (compared to PoS or | having a less competitive eth mining industry) | everfree wrote: | This isn't really true. You also have to buy equipment and | run specialized software to participate in PoS. It requires | keeping a node connected to the internet with high uptime, | and maintaining its software and hardware. | | Plus, due to slashing, you are uniquely responsible for | mistakes your validator makes. So, staking comes with both | responsibilities and consequences for breaching them, just | like any legal contract. | | The fact that you can rent a turnkey cloud solution to do | all this work for you and split the profits isn't really | relevant to the argument IMO (I consider staking with | Coinbase "renting cloud computing" in a specialized way). | yokem55 wrote: | Except, using the same kind of pooling that POW depends on, | you can still get in at just about any price level. .01 Eth | can be staked just as easily as 10,000 eth. And running a | validator with 32 isn't nothing - you still have to keep a | machine on and online 24/7 with an uncapped connection or | pay someone to host that machine. | serverholic wrote: | I find comments like yours hilarious. The idea that the | ethereum foundation has spent years and years designing a | PoS system, writing papers, doing tests, building proofs of | correctness aaaaaand derp they just didn't think of people | sitting on their asses. | AlexandrB wrote: | It's not that hilarious when you realize that this is the | same kind of thinking some cryto-boosters apply to | hundreds of years of financial regulation and history. | arrow7000 wrote: | Maybe answer the question instead of scoffing at how | ridiculous it is? | shawnz wrote: | In PoS, you are still permanently burning the time value of | the money you have staked. That's unrecoverable just like | the electricity spent in PoW is unrecoverable. | nerdponx wrote: | Or you can pay someone a flat amount to do the "stuff" and | experience your own unlimited percentage-based gains, like | in pretty much any other market where "capital" is a thing. | Jyaif wrote: | They have an incentive to not mess around. | sp332 wrote: | Is it different from the current PoW system? | narush wrote: | Yep! It's a new chain as well - that will eventually consume | the old Ethereum PoW chain :) | TarasBob wrote: | Read the pros and cons of proof of stake compared to proof of | work here (written by Vitalik): | https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html | xiphias2 wrote: | While I myself stay with Bitcoin, Ethereum still has lots of | advantages compared to the fiat system: it's still open source, | and people can still validate the rules (although that full | validation is extremely hard). | | Also the current fiat system is debt based, which means that | the vast majority of money is printed by banks and the money | printing power is at the highest ranking sales person, and | hidden. | jayd16 wrote: | Banks will still loan even if fiat doesn't exist. | NicoJuicy wrote: | And the current crypto system seems to be meme based, while | the fiat system is market based. | gspr wrote: | In a well functioning democratic society, the money printing | is ultimately under democratic control. Don't lie. | xiphias2 wrote: | I had banker friends bragging me getting sex for approving | low interest loans. I'm not sure what democratic control | are you talking about, loans are approved by people. | gspr wrote: | Right. But surely that's someone abusing the system. It's | not the system itself. | disruptalot wrote: | A system being open to abuse is to an extent a property | of the system. | meowface wrote: | You could say the decision to go to war is also ultimately | under democratic control. Yes, it is, but it doesn't | necessarily mean you should trust a politician or president | when they want war. | | Similarly, you shouldn't necessarily trust a central bank | when they want to print money. (I'm not inherently opposed | to it and think the pros probably outweigh the cons for | some situations and intents; just saying accountability in | cases like these isn't as simple as "it's the people's | will".) | gspr wrote: | And these cryptocurrencies are akin to letting whatever | group holds the highest stake or the most computing power | decide to go to war instead. So much better. Yay. | disruptalot wrote: | Nope. The point of consensus is that when you opt in to | rules, they don't change under you. | | Who has the highest amount of power in Bitcoin, and why | haven't they done anything, for example increase the | issuance? | gspr wrote: | I agree that the rules don't change. But I want the rules | to be changed by a democratically elected competent | government in the face of a crisis. | endisneigh wrote: | > Who has the highest amount of power in Bitcoin, and why | haven't they done anything, for example increase the | issuance? | | How would that benefit them? | disruptalot wrote: | The issuance is exponentially decreasing every 4 years. | If you're a miner and have hardware investment, | increasing your issuance contrary to the expectation of | the market is essentially taxing the holders. | | It's besides the point though, you can certainly benefit | from holding power of the protocol but the reality is | that there is very little of this dynamic. | fastball wrote: | No True Scotsman. | jMyles wrote: | If I understand correctly, that has never happened with | fiat money ever in the history of humanity, though. | | Hence the impetus to try something different and more | befitting the future of our species. | gspr wrote: | What? Most well-functioning democracies have tasked their | central banks with inflation targets. | jMyles wrote: | Today, the dollar is the reserve currency of note across | the world. That may be changing, but I imagine we can | agree on that facet of today's global economy. | | So, do you think that the dollar - and specifically the | inflation schedule and distribution mechanisms of the | dollar - can be reasonably said to be under democratic, | rather than plutocratic, control? | gspr wrote: | There are several well-managed fiat currencies in the | world that do not rely on being the world reserve! EUR, | CHF, GBP, NOK, DKK, SEK, to name some. | kemonocode wrote: | Truly, as you say, "in a well functioning democratic | society", which is not the case for a not so insignificant | proportion of the world. | gspr wrote: | I have no problem understanding why people in failed | states might want these cryptocurrencies. They're | essentially more convenient (but also more volatile) | means of barter. | | But let's face it: most of the hype is in well- | functioning democracies. Here, I cannot fathom why anyone | would wanna replace fiat currencies with this crap. | briefcomment wrote: | In the case of a supply capped crypto, to not get burned | by asset inflation. | throwaways885 wrote: | Because despite it being very bad for the poor and middle | classes, money printing is at an all-time high. Just like | how neither US party is anti-war (but claims to be), | neither wish to give up QE. The system is rigged for the | super rich. | disruptalot wrote: | Of all the years in which you could make this argument, | this year is probably the worst. | | In the "well functioning democracy" U.S. You have: | | - Mistrust in institutions | | - An insane asset inflation bubble fueled by the biggest | fiat printing spree ever | | Sure, the state hasn't failed. But are you really | surprised people want to expose themselves to a new | paradigm with different fundamentals for money and | finance, this year? | gspr wrote: | And if the US fails, don't you have quite a lot bigger | problems than the currency over there? | | Good luck paying for things with cryptocurrency-of-the- | day without electricity. Or without authorities to call | if your trading partner pulls a gun on you. But I'm sure | the American solution is a diesel generator and an even | bigger gun ;-) | secondcoming wrote: | Have you ever actually used an Ethereum in real life outside | of price speculation? | xiphias2 wrote: | Ethereum no, but Bitcoin sure, I'm travelling a lot, and I | have a lot of payment problems (for example my bank | disabled my credit card just because they said that it's | not working with some types of contactless recievers, but | they can't send a new one to my hotel, just to my home | address). Bitcoin always works, although it's not real-time | (still faster than sending money to my Revolut account, | which takes days). | | If a person thinks that fiat payments work well, he hasn't | really travelled yet to different cultures. | dmitriid wrote: | I have traveled to different countries. | | Fiat works, and works well. You're advised to keep some | cash on hand, but it works multiple orders of ||| [1] | better than bitcoin | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham%27s_number | cageface wrote: | I've been traveling all over the world for the last ten | years. I've never had any serious problems paying for | anything with good old fashioned credit/debit cards. Even | getting cash in the local currency is trivial with ATMs. | jaggs wrote: | I ton't mean to sound rude (really) but this sounds | exactly like the argument 'I've never had any serious | problems traveling around on my horse, why do I need some | new-fangled carriage which does nothing better than | before?'. | | This is the genesis of a new crypto universe. It's hugely | hyped, and a lot of it is clearly BS. But underlying the | hype and hysteria there's a kernel of a new paradigm | emerging. | | Crypto applications promise to provide disintermediation | on a scale not seen before. Direct peer to peer | transactions, conducted transparently, without a need to | verify trust and happening simultaneously anywhere in the | world. | | Not only that but smart contracts bring with them the | potential to do stuff that simply is not possible right | now. For example, providing instant conditional | transactions (if my fave rental car is available book it, | otherwise search for another solution, but only from | these sources at this price) etc etc etc. We don't know | what this means, but it could be a revolution. Or not. :) | dmitriid wrote: | > Crypto applications promise to provide | disintermediation on a scale not seen before. | | They don't. All of "disentermidation" immediately turns | around and restores all the institutions based on, you | know, trust. | | > Direct peer to peer transactions, conducted | transparently, without a need to verify trust | | Yup. Until you pay for something, and that something | never arrives. | | > (if my fave rental car is available book it, otherwise | search for another solution, but only from these sources | at this price) | | Literally nothing prevents you from doing it right now, | with existing technologies... Oh, wait. All rental car | companies are closed to any integrations of any kind. | Smart contracts will do literally nothing in this | scenario. | | Besides. If I go and rent a car from, say, Hertz, I get a | contract written in plain language. It may be a little | obtuse, but I can read and understand it. Smart contracts | on the other hand are written in obscure esoteric | programmming languages. Good luck telling people "don't | worry, you won't be scammed out of your money because it | has 'smart' and 'crypto' in it". | asjdflakjsdf wrote: | ETH is so cool. But only really if you are into that kind | of thing. | | Smart contracts, and all the other buzz words turn | regular folk away. I'm hedging my bets on the coin with a | dog on it for mass adoption. Even the word "Ethereum" | (and "Eth") is less user-friendly to "Doge". | | For me, all this ETH stuff is just hype (very few ETH | owners actually care about the currency side of things | and its already gone too far into pyramid scheme | territory to ever recover imo). The dog coin works just | great as it is right now for the amount of users it has. | Any upgrades should be manageable before they are ever | necessary. | zepto wrote: | > my bank disabled my credit card just ... | | Yes, this can be a real problem when traveling. | | > Bitcoin always works ... | | This is obviously a completely bullshit statement. | Bitcoin almost _never works_ in places where credit cards | or 'fiat' are accepted. | | > If a person thinks that fiat payments work well, he | hasn't really travelled yet to different cultures. | | 'Fiat payments' covers everything from the ATM network to | cash to western union to Hawala. All aspects of fiat | payments indeed have problems. | | However the idea that _today_ , Bitcoin solves these | problems outside of a tiny fraction of contrived cases is | a delusional fantasy. | | Almost nobody in the world trades in Bitcoin. Almost | everybody in the world trades in 'fiat'. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > If a person thinks that fiat payments work well, he | hasn't really travelled yet to different cultures. | | Count me among the people who have travelled and never | encountered problems. I always bring two cards in case | something weird happens, but I've never had to use the | backup. | | If established banking cards aren't working in a country, | it seems unlikely that relatively recent cryptocurrency | would be working any better at their banking | institutions. If their banks can't take your bank card in | exchange for cash, I doubt they're going to be set up to | take your Bitcoin. | robjan wrote: | I've never had problems withdrawing cash, even in | relatively repressive countries. Your credit card was | probably blocked to prevent fraud because you didn't tell | your bank you are planning to travel rather than your | bank trying to censor your money. | GordonS wrote: | I've travelled extensively, and actually found it quite | common to be unable to withdraw funds from the ATMs of | some banks. | | In practice it has never been more that a nuisance, as | I've just gone to a different bank's ATM and it's been | fine. | lmohseni wrote: | I've loaded up some eth into an ethereum based browser and | knocked around their web. It's interesting because the type | of site where you normally have to sign in ("banking", | news, etc) you don't have to sign in because every | interaction is predicated through your wallet. It's as if | your username were identical to your public key. | | However as a speculative instrument eth and Bitcoin are not | my cup of tea. | secondcoming wrote: | Interesting. Sounds like Brave's BAT token then? I assume | the websites you visited got paid a little bit of your | Eth? | | How does that work? Is it a vanilla Eth transfer, or is a | contract generated each time and you review the Solidity | code before proceeding? | iDisagreedEar wrote: | I don't accept ETH due to removing the soft cap on EIP 669. | Infinite inflation like doge coin. | | I have a ton of Bitcoin transactions with friends. | Originally through the blockchain, now we use coinbase | email for free transfers. | | I don't keep my stash on there, but I keep spending money | in there. | suikadayo wrote: | You should read up on EIP-1559 and inflation after the | merge then. | | Ethereum will effectively have a cap of 120m, which will | burn down to 100m over 12 years. | intotheabyss wrote: | Not OP, but I literally use Ethereum every day and have | been for like 2 years now. I started using dapps in 2016, | but in 2019 is when the network had a sufficient amount of | things to do that I found myself using it daily. | RivieraKid wrote: | In our current system, decisions are made democratically - you | vote politicians, who choose central bankers, who make the | decisions. | seph-reed wrote: | On the scale between a full democracy and a full oligarchy, | what you're describing would be a "representative democracy." | | Unfortunately, our representatives don't really represent us, | so we're much closer to oligarchy than democracy. | | Also, a full democracy it terrible. It's basically the | equivalent of facebook... having representatives who's full | time job is to be knowledgable is much better than giving | everyone an equal say on everything. | bobbylarrybobby wrote: | Unlike with fiat, you're not forced to use any particular | crypto. If the rich stakeholders of ethereum decide to muck | around with the network, nobody will want to use it anymore and | the value will drop. | gspr wrote: | Demanding a single currency to settle debts is a _feature, | not a bug_. I don 't wanna spend each morning researching | which currency to use today. And I'm sure the local store | doesn't wanna figure out which set of ten optional currencies | to sell milk for. | | This doesn't even begin to consider long term debt. | Polygator wrote: | The justification is that contrarily to PoW, where there are | economies of scale on computing power, PoS power scales | linearly with your stake. | | Mining has been concentrated in the hands of a few gigantic | mining pools for a while, and PoS will actually make Ethereum | more democratic. Again, this is based on documentation, there | might be unforeseen consequences | iDisagreedEar wrote: | Anyone can mine Bitcoin, the rich are the only people in | control of Ethereum transactions. | | Unforseen? This has been known before the miners eliminated | the soft cap on EIP 669. | Geee wrote: | There are no economies of scale in PoW. At least for longer | term. Cost of energy rises locally the more you use it. Cheap | energy is somewhat equally distributed around the globe, | which ensures geographical decentralization. | lasagnaphil wrote: | Energy prices aren't really distributed equally around the | world: | | https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/ | micropresident wrote: | That has nothing to do with economies of scale. | Geee wrote: | This has more to do with electricity demand. It's | important to understand the relationship between energy | price vs. population density and standard of living. | Energy is always cheapest where population density and | standard of living are the lowest. That's why bitcoin | mining will find it's way to remote sources of natural | energy. | purple_ferret wrote: | It's not that different. But the end goal isn't a revolutionary | overhaul, but progress in a different direction. | | The delusion that crypto is or can be the best thing humanity | has ever created has to come to an end. | | Let crypto just be another moderately useful system in society | and let the speculation game die out. | GongOfFour wrote: | Will this lower the Gas fees at all? | exo762 wrote: | No, it wont. Look for L2 solutions. | kemonocode wrote: | For the people who criticize as to why they've taken so long in | shifting to a PoS model: consensus takes time, so does developing | and testing something that definitively shouldn't go wrong. | | Also, there's the inherent issue with Proof-of-Stake that Proof- | of-Work doesn't have: the initial distribution of the coin has to | be wide enough before it could feasibly self-maintain a PoS shift | without being immediately vulnerable to consensus attacks. | Ethereum is definitively mature enough by now, it wasn't a few | years ago. | jerrycruncher wrote: | Consensus may take time, but when you're pouring gas onto a | fire, arguing that you need to dump out most of the can before | you can be sure you know what you're doing isn't a defensible | position. | dboat wrote: | I don't understand what you're trying to say. | bsedlm wrote: | > the initial distribution of the coin has to be wide enough | | I don't understand how proof of stake works to the depth I | understand proof of work. But this reassures me that it's | feasable that they'll accomplish the same distributed | consensus. | | So then, could I say that Ethereum proof of stake will allow | the owners of the coins (ether) to be independent from the | owners of the mining operations? | | or uhmm... | | is the independence between the computaional costs of the | "mining" and actual minted ether? | kemonocode wrote: | Ethereum _proof of work_ made it so the owners of the coins | could be independent from the owners of the mining | operations, even if in practice many miners end up keeping | most of the block rewards themselves and only reinvesting | what they need in new infrastructure and to maintain what | they already have. Proof of stake makes it so the miners and | holders are now the same (you stake the coins that you have, | or you pool them up with others), however the cost to wreck | the chain is much greater than it would have been 3-4 years | ago. | | The whole idea is that Ether is so spread out now, it'd be | unfeasible for someone to snatch up enough of it for an | attack, in a similar way to how an ever-increasing difficulty | makes it harder for a hostile actor to coordinate enough of | it to make such attack. | jyu wrote: | Maybe it is spread out now, but won't there be centralized | aggregators of eth so some point in the future a handful of | POS nodes control a disproportionate amount of power? Is it | so hard to imagine that coinbase or some other exchange | accumulates enough eth to sway transaction validation? | | Seriously, please answer if this is wrong! | 0134340 wrote: | Yes, that's the problem with validation through concensus | which is universal in currency. With enough power (nodes) | you can delegitimize other stake holders. | swensel wrote: | I do think there will be some centralization at the | exchange level. As of April 2021, Kraken had 600,000 ETH | staked for ETH2 [1]. | | It's not in the interest of Kraken or Coinbase to disrupt | one of these PoS networks, but there is some barrier to | entry for staking ETH2 or other PoS coins on your own, vs | staking them on an exchange. In the case of ETH2, if your | staking node goes down, you get slashed and lose some | ETH. If there isn't slashing (not all PoS coins have | that), I don't see what guarantee of network security or | uptime there is. | | I'd be curious what PoS coin experts think about this | part. It seems like PoS / staking can lead to | centralization. PoW has energy concerns for sure, but it | has so far demonstrated decentralization pretty well. | | I'm legitimately curious about this. I'd love for PoS to | be feasible and am trying to understand it more. | | [1] https://en.cryptonomist.ch/2021/04/20/ethereum-2-0-60 | 0-thous... | nootropicat wrote: | >but there is some barrier to entry for staking ETH2 or | other PoS coins on your own, vs staking them on an | exchange | | This is true, but those exchanges either charge fees or | are going to charge them, making it more profitable to | stake at home. Because offline penalties depend on | correlation to how many other people are offline, it's | actually safer to stake at home. Eth was accumulated | primarily by devs that understood its value before | everyone else. Devs are in general paid well. As a | result, it's nothing special for those individuals to own | thousands of eth - it was even possible to buy eth below | $100 as recently as in 2020. Those 600k eth on Kraken | aren't that much relatively. | | Right now it's very early and many people aren't staking | because there are much higher returns elsewhere, and | before the merge withdrawals aren't possible, so you | can't even go back if something better appears. I fully | intend to stake at home once extreme yields elsewhere | stop - in the long run staking is likely to have the | highest yield on eth. | | >PoW has energy concerns for sure, but it has so far | demonstrated decentralization pretty well. | | Mining is extremely centralized in China. Mining has | infinite economies of scale + less efficient miners are | pushed out, so the most efficient entity/location is | certain to control all hashpower eventually (not | necessarily China). | https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-hash-rate- | dro... | xur17 wrote: | I definitely do think centralization is a risk of PoS | over PoW. | | > It's not in the interest of Kraken or Coinbase to | disrupt one of these PoS networks, but there is some | barrier to entry for staking ETH2 or other PoS coins on | your own, vs staking them on an exchange. In the case of | ETH2, if your staking node goes down, you get slashed and | lose some ETH. If there isn't slashing (not all PoS coins | have that), I don't see what guarantee of network | security or uptime there is. | | This is actually one place where ETH has tried to | incentivize independent staking - the penalty for | downtime is equal to the incentive for mining. In an | extreme example, if you are down for 6 months of the | year, and up for 6 months, the downtime costs should | cancel out the earnings from the other 6 months. One | caveat to this is that there are larger penalties for | correlated downtime (ex: if a large portion of the | network is down). This is to de-incentivize | centralization of mining. | | That said, as someone fairly technical that could run his | own staking node, I am seriously considering using a | centralized service, or at the very least using a vps. | This makes me think that the the majority are going to be | independently run on a slew of hosting providers and via | centralized hosting providers. | | There are also some interesting "decentralized" options | like Rocketpool that haven't launched yet, but will allow | staking via smart contracts against a pool of random | nodes. | | And then at the end of the day, the choice in staking | providers should allow the network to at least react to | centralization risks. Say a locality forces a provider to | censor transactions in some way - I imagine folks will | move their funds to a provider in another country, or | switch to something like Rocketpool, effectively working | around the issue. | 0134340 wrote: | Centralization meaning those who have more gain more? I'd | love to hear about any currency that doesn't have this | feature/bug. Those who gain power tend to be able to | acquire more by bootstrapping from prior power; it's | pretty much universal. Even PoW has its own form of | centralization in that those who have more can become | richer and more easily gain therefore leading to | maturation (centralization) of the currency. | swensel wrote: | My understanding is those who have more coins on a PoS | network have more stake / power. This can matter if there | are things like on-chain governance / voting rights, | depending on their stake. Those with more stake would | also get more staking rewards (it's like an APR % return | based on the total staked), and if they stake their | rewards as well, then they'd have even more total stake | on the network. There also are concerns with those having | a majority of the stake in a network being able to | disrupt or attack the network (things like slashing based | on poor behavior can prevent bad actors from wanting to | do that, as they would lose some or all of what they had | staked in that case). There are also different kinds of | PoS though, and I'm not an expert on it. | 0134340 wrote: | Yes, that's a feature or bug, however you see it, that's | universal in capitalism, even communism or socialism what | implementations I've read about. I guess if one isn't | happy with those that have power in one system, a person | should switch to another system. It's just so universal | that I don't think there's any other way around it other | than switch systems as none are perfect, all insofar as I | can see are susceptible to the power of consensus. | | We've tried to mitigate it with constitutions in the | political world and it helps to some extent but many | would agree that there is still an exploitable hole in | that those with power can use their own to gain more or | mitigate risk. And any time you mitigate that feature/bug | too much you run the risk of decreasing reward for work | and stake, thereby delegitimizing the system itself or in | the case we speak of, your currency. So pick your poison. | randomhodler84 wrote: | It is in their interests -- remember when CZ asked if it | was possible to rollback BTC before the hack? Imagine if | you actually gave the exchanges this power. Nothing to | stop them staking with customer funds. The exchanges do | it now with other PoS shitcoins. PoS is the death of | decentralization. | CarlBeek wrote: | Here are a few of the reasons that come to mind as to why this | transition has been taking us so long: | | * The design of the Beacon Chain is far more optimised than our | initial designs for a PoS system | | * There are far more crypto-economic edge cases in a PoS system | when compared to PoW | | * Software development is hard and time estimates are even | harder | | * The use of a hybrid fork choice to balance safety and | liveness trade-offs | | * There is a crazy amount of value being handles on Ethereum so | it is necessary to be conservative with our changes (move fast | and break things is not an option) | | * There are 4 concurrent implementations being developed all of | which need to be inter-compatible, and production ready | | * As Ethereum governance is decentralised we need a shelling | point for exactly what Ethereum PoS looks like, this takes time | | * We have worked hard to create, encourage, and embrace | standards with other chains so that the cryptocurrency | community of tomorrow is more inter-compatible (eg. IETF BLS | standard or libp2p networking) | | * We have spent time designing around quantum-computing | resistant backups for the majority of the cryptography (eg. | validators all have a Lamport backup key though most don't | realise it) | | * New cryptography has been developed and previously abandoned | schemes revitalised (eg. Verifiable Delay Functions or the | Legendre PRF) | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | * Its a technically flawed solution that now has so much | hype, abandoning the idea would lead to further FUD, | tarnishing the project's future direction. So we must go | through the motions to appease the energy FUD warriors. | CarlBeek wrote: | lol, Ethereum's Beacon Chain already been running since Dec | 1. See https://beaconcha.in/ Please point me towards the | flaws. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Point me at its purpose? | | As far as I can tell, it was a trick to remove coin from | circulation, locking it away where it could not be used | again. The fact that people have tokenized these beacon | coins on other chains to trade show that people want | their money back! | jwitko wrote: | No, it really doesn't. This is akin to saying because | people take out second mortgages they really want their | money back that they bought their house with. | | Being able to leverage a committed sum of money via | collateralization is as old as financial systems | themselves. | | If you can find any specific reasons for your take I'm | very open to hearing about them? | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | In the world of hard money (bitcoin), leverage is | extremely dangerous, you may never be able to repay the | loan. You would not want to borrow a house worth of | bitcoin in a 2nd mortgage -- you could never pay it back! | | In the legacy financial world, 2nd mortgages just lead to | private inflation of the fiat money supply (the money is | being conjured out of nothing to pay for an asset that | was already paid for). Nothing is produced, except some | energy is burned updating centralized databases. | | Having systems where both realities exist is great. I'm a | fan of hard money. It is honest. | ascendantlogic wrote: | To establish "good enough" distributed consensus without | burning absolutely enormous amounts of energy doing | throwaway math problems? | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | I understand what they wanted to achieve, and I | understand that they cannot achieve this. Seems that | burning absolutely enormous amounts of energy is the only | secure way of doing it. I guess rather than fight the | universe, we better find a way to do it cleanly! | ascendantlogic wrote: | > and I understand that they cannot achieve this | | Gonna need some citations here for this one. | defaultname wrote: | And by far the most significant hindrance to moving away from | proof of work is that there a number of significant players | who have a large economic interest in PoW. Ethereum was | promising this move many years ago, but it always was an | extraordinarily low priority. | | There are a lot of people with perverse biases. Many of the | comments enthusiastically defending Bitcoin are people who | are sitting on BTC and have watched it get pummelled due to | its ludicrous enormous-energy-for-something-that-does- | nothing-for-humanity reality (seriously -- if I see one more | chart comparing the entirety of the financial industry with | Bitcoin. The former powers the entire world. The latter | powers some speculators, criminals, and a minuscule number of | legitimate transactions). | webXL wrote: | > Does nothing for humanity | | Really? If that energy consumption problem wasn't there, | what advantages does Ethereum have over Bitcoin? Would it | even exist, since it offers many of the same features? | meowface wrote: | Ethereum natively supports smart contracts. Bitcoin | doesn't support them natively; any attempt to add them | has to be a separate layer on top. | | That's why the past few years have seen a rise in | fungible and non-fungible tokens (average merit of those | aside for the sake of argument, since this is just | answering the question "it offers many of the same | features"), pretty much all of which are hosted on | Ethereum or Ethereum code forks like Binance Smart Chain. | webXL wrote: | So back to the OP's point, Ethereum minus smart contracts | and efficient energy use is "nothing for humanity", as if | the basic features of money haven't improved our standard | of living and there's nothing wrong with central banks | and the powerful that benefit from them. The energy used | provides immense value _today_. The costs need to be | internalized though. | sobani wrote: | > Ethereum minus smart contracts [...] is "nothing for | humanity" | | No shit, if you take away the defining feature of | something, you will be left with very of value indeed. | | That's like saying the web without HTTP is nothing for | humanity. | miohtama wrote: | For more details on advantages of Ethereum over Bitcoin, | and advantages other new blockchains have over Ethereum, | please see my recent presentation: | | https://capitalgram.com/posts/history-of- | cryptocurrencies/ | RhodoGSA wrote: | Interested to hear your thoughts on Polkadot. At the end | of the first section, you stop the 'innovation train' at | NPOS. Polkadot takes all the ideas presented in your | article, combines them and adds a couple unique ideas | such as parachains. | vmception wrote: | I disagree about the priority, they literally didn't know | what they were doing or how to do it just yet. The security | demands this community wants are and were completely | science fiction as there is no proof of stake network that | has met the goals they are aiming for, and they are simply | much closer to reality now. | | There was poor governance and management that debilitated | their ability to function during the 3 year bear market. | And they got their act together. In the mean time, more | product market fit was made apparent and upgrades to the | instruction set for arbitrary execution was done to the | network and continues to this day. | | The Ethereum network consists of many-to-many relationships | for approval transactions for ERC20 tokens to interact with | other smart contracts. This wasn't even foreseeable 18 | months ago, and 18 months before that the ERC20 protocol | wasn't even ratified. | ourcat wrote: | I really hope they don't rush all this merging and forking. | | And also "audit the auditors". So they don't end up on a future | rekt.news leaderboard. | agumonkey wrote: | I wonder if it's already on on a testnet | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Here's the testnet: https://nocturne.rayonism.io/ | DennisP wrote: | The PoS protocol itself has been running in production since | December 1, in parallel with the old network, with over $10 | billion staked so far. | | What remains is to change the legacy clients to use the PoS | network for choosing blocks, instead of miners. That has a | working multi-client testnet. | swensel wrote: | This is one thing I've been wondering about new projects that | start with PoS. How do they have enough distribution of the | coins in order for them to be resilient against attacks? | hanniabu wrote: | Exactly, the devil is in the details, just like how all | current "scalable" blockchains are only able to do so because | they sacrificed decentralization. Ethereum is dealing with | growing pains right now because it's solving scalability with | an approach that doesn't sacrifice decentralization or | security. | WanderPanda wrote: | AFAIK they are already at 6-8tb for their blockchain. Seems | to be not very helpful with a high diversity of staking | nodes. I am in doubt that their turing complete global | computer can scale AND stay decentralized | Sargos wrote: | That's only for an archive node which isn't that useful | to the network and is generally only used by specialist. | A full Ethereum node easily fits on a 1TB drive and with | research ongoing into statelessness the problem of state | growth won't be a problem long term. | nootropicat wrote: | This is a good point and I think only ethereum has sufficient | distribution. The sole advantage of PoW over PoS is | distribution - miners sell, dumping the price, which is also | likely to make other people to sell. Even many ethereum | founders sold very low - Vlad Zamfir in particular sold ~100% | below $20 (he tweeted about it, can't find it now). | | Ethereum had 6 years of PoW now - most likely nothing else | can repeat its distribution, ever. The time of PoW is visibly | over. | | Another point is that ethereum was icoed when crypto was | tiny, few people believed smart contracts could have value | and VC stayed away. Normal people are much more likely to | sell just to buy a house. Now new coins start with coins | distributed to VC and they are prepared to hold for years | hoping for eth-tier returns. There's an argument that not | that many people even knew about the ico - but the same is | true for bitcoin mining early. It's very hard to quantify | precisely but I think both have almost identical coin | concentration. | | Be wary of manipulative statistics that ignore the inherent | differences between the utxo vs account model - like | percentage of coins held by top x%. The assumed practice in | an account-based model is for one user to use one address, | while the current practice for utxo coins is to use one | address per received transaction. Same is true for value sent | per timeframe - because utxo relies on change addresses the | actual transferred value is much smaller. | WanderPanda wrote: | > The time of PoW is visibly over. | | Thanks for pointing this out! I never thought about this. | To me the biggest long term threat to btc is the shift in | block rewards from mined coins to transaction fees. I am | assuming a possibly much smaller security budget available | for "wasting energy". But at that point it still might be | enough as there is no network effect supporting new pow | chains anymore, that could threaten btc security by having | more sha hashpower. | LeftTriangle wrote: | > Under Proof-of-Stake, when the price of ETH increases, the | security of the network does too | | This does not follow. Security level is independent of miner | reward value under PoS. | suikadayo wrote: | As price of Ether rises, it becomes even more difficult to | acquire the 32 ETH required to become a validator. | seph-reed wrote: | The "Cantillion Effect" | | https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/the-cantillion-effect | | Ethereum is already a system where those who are closest to the | money printers benefit the most. At first it was oligarchic just | because of its pre-mine and air drops, but PoS just takes that to | a new level. You get paid to be rich. | | The reason this uses so much less energy is because it's so much | closer to a centralized fiat currency. The only value implied by | PoS is that some rich people are backing it... a lot like the | dollar. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | ETH wont, and shouldn't migrate to PoS. PoS is a scam -- a trick, | a reinvention of existing corrupt economic models. It throws out | the greatest part of decentralized cryptocurrencies -- trustless, | independently verifiable, auto-adjusting to external conditions, | hard to fake proof of work. It replaces it with shell games and | chicanery. I am very pro proof of work. The energy usage is a | good thing. We can deal with the emissions from generation out of | band, it is not the protocols problem. | | Two primary concerns, technical feasibility and political strife: | | I have my extreme doubts that you can move a chain like this | without causing it to collapse. As yet all we have seen out of | the eth camp is more broken proof of concepts -- not a viable | model for a potentially trillion dollar economy. How to you | replace a jet engine mid flight? (You don't. Unless you like not | safely landing). | | PoS coin is worthless coin. If you want to have your expensive- | to-mine gas coin be worth something, you have to make it hard to | acquire. My second concern is that if they do manage to | 'migrate', enough folks will ignore this and keep mining. This is | a problem today with more contentious PoW hard forks. | | Ultimately this behavior will lead to more chain forks, which | unlike in the ETC days actually is a big deal today. Whos USDT | USDC etc is the real coin? The eth1 PoW 'legacy' network, or the | eth2 'pos' chain, or what about the eth1-a/eth1-b fork when the | first political staking challenges come up (see all world | religion schisms). PoW solves this problem. One truth, enforced | by universal energy usage. Not power players arguing over | interpretations of religious text. | hoka-one-one wrote: | rothschilds | r32rf43g wrote: | What are your thoughts on PoET systems? | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Proof of elapsed time? The intel thing? Only works with | trusted nodes and/or permissioned blockchains; not suitable | for trustless/permissionless public chains. The only | trustless consensus system we have today is proof of work. | And it works well, at scale, for 14 years. | exo762 wrote: | > enough folks will ignore this and keep mining | | Irrelevant. Well designed networks are pretty much isolated | from whims of miners. Ethereum is one of them, Bitcoin is not. | I'm speaking about 2 weeks difficulty re-targeting window vs | single block window. | | > It replaces it with shell games and chicanery. | | Why do you perceive it like that? I would love to hear details. | | Ethereum will use hybrid PoS. Where random number generation | (deciding who will become next block producer) is separated | from deciding who is in the pool of potential producers (anty- | sybil defense). First will be decided with commit-reveal scheme | unbiased with the use of VDFs, second - with PoS. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Sounds like a shell game to me. You know what isn't? Burning | energy, using a simple hash function to measure how much | energy was burned. Simple, effective, safe. Energy usage is a | good thing, actually. | exo762 wrote: | There is nothing simple about hash functions :-) They rely | on unproven mathematical conjecture that one-way functions | exist. Their existence would imply that P!=NP :-) | | Re: shell game. Are you implying that fraud or misdirection | is involved? Some bitcoin scientist should be able to point | where it is hidden. Or is it just a claim without evidence? | jonplackett wrote: | Is it possible/likely that exchanges are going to abuse their | position and secretly use everyone else's ETH for proof of stake | while they're holding it? | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Like they do on all other PoS (worthless) coins? Yes. This is | the fundamental problem. We have seen chain takeovers from this | exact scenario. See Steem / Hive for an example of how this can | go very wrong. | mgh2 wrote: | This article comes from the Ethereum blog, can anyone verify the | numbers or provide an unbiased view? | erjiang wrote: | The numbers that they are providing are pretty reasonable and | nobody is really disputing that removing the mining requirement | and just staking your Ethereum is enormously more efficient. | Even if you assume each staker is running 1 server, then 140k | computers NOT running at full tilt all the time is still a tiny | consumer of electricity compared to the current situation. | | A lot of the debate seems to be around whether or not it's as | secure or viable, or whether the existing Ethereum miners will | try to stage a coup or something. | | Disclaimer: I don't hold cryptocurrency and I think proof-of- | work cryptocurrencies are a tragic waste. | skizm wrote: | Dumb question: if all popular cryptocurrencies shifted to proof | of stake, would GPU prices come back down to earth? | Havoc wrote: | There are a ton of currencies so no. There will be pow ones | left for at least a couple years I think | kevindong wrote: | > If energy consumption per-transaction is more your speed, | that's ~35Wh/tx | | The improved energy consumption is still a lot. For reference, a | 2019 16" MacBook Pro has a 100 Wh battery. In other words, 3ish | transactions would fully drain such a laptop's battery. | DennisP wrote: | It's an average for the network, not an actual expense you pay | to run a transaction. Stakers are the ones mainly using that | energy. If you're just a regular user and send a transaction, | you just spend the tiny bit of energy needed to make a | cryptographic signature and transmit it. | sktrdie wrote: | Does someone have a deeper understanding into Proof Of Stake? For | what I remember it never had the same security promises that | Proof Of Work had. | | In other words if PoS is conceptually sound why don't all | cryptocurrencies switch over to it? | lifty wrote: | They actually are. Most new projects have chosen PoS for sybil | resistance, and once Ethereum switches as well, we should have | a large enough honey pot in order to gain confidence regarding | its security. | aaroninsf wrote: | "Supermarket Monopoly scratchers now printed on 80% post-consumer | recycled paper using organic soy ink." | | Details at 11. | turbinerneiter wrote: | I hope I'm not being lazy, but does POS not just mean the more | you have, the more you get? Wouldn't it converge to 1 wallet | controlling everything? | | Or to rephrase the question: where can I find the "POS for | dummies" page? | tromp wrote: | Every staker preserves their fraction of the (increasing) pie | by staking. Those who don't stake slightly lose in their | fraction of the pie, benefitting all stakers by the same | percentage. | rawtxapp wrote: | Yep, it literally codefies "rich gets richer" down to the core | of the protocol. | turbinerneiter wrote: | Just saw that you need 32 ethereums to be able to stake. | That's more than 60k. | | Whatever, I'm out. | rauljordan2020 wrote: | There are staking pools that allow you to stake with less | than 32 ETH and pool those together to participate. We | understand the requirement of 32 is high but that doesn't | mean it is impossible to participate in staking with less. | Rocketpool or Lido finance are examples. | rawtxapp wrote: | It's not just about that limit though and it's not even a | complaint to be clear. If eth pays me 5-10% per year for | a simple cryptographic signature, great, not gonna say | no. | | But it inherently makes the system unfair, I have 0 | pressure to sell that eth since it didn't really take me | any effort to make it and I don't need it to cover life | expenses, whereas for someone who has much less money, | well that return on their eth (say from pools), they'll | probably need to sell it to cover some other costs (rents | for example). So for the wealthy, their shares grows | while everyone has pressure to sell. There's also a cycle | where if you're a staker and few other people sell, price | will skyrocket, make it even more unaccessible. | | I really hope that we avoid these scenarios in real | world, but I'm a bit skeptical. | colincooke wrote: | Honestly this change might actually be the one that makes me | finally buy some crypto. The energy burden and overall | wastefullness of these coins has vastly outweighed any potential | benefit they may provide. A big coin making such a good (at least | in my books) change should be rewarded. Since crypto for better | or worse seems here to stay, I hope that energy concious | decisions continue to be made, and that the market responds | positively. | knowuh wrote: | I hope this means i will be able to buy a graphics card soon. | knicholes wrote: | You can buy them right now. In fact, two months ago I bought | six 3090s and 15 3080s with a two phone calls and maybe twenty | clicks. | | The part you're missing is the price. It's my secret, but I'll | share it here. You can buy a Dell R12 with one of those cards | and, upon receiving it, sell the components for more than the | purchase price. | Animats wrote: | Their graphs show a huge increase in energy consumption for both | Bitcoin and Ethereum since January 2021. Why? What happened | recently? | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Price increase. | Animats wrote: | The Bitcoin hash rate graph didn't go up like that in | 2021.[1] The Etherium hash rate did.[2] Where are they | getting their data? | | [1] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin- | hashrate.html#3... | | [2] https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/ethereum- | hashrate.html | DickingAround wrote: | This reduces security considerably. Fundamentally, the proof of | work system locks in longer chains because of all the work that | was done _historically_. If there is just one honest node out | there you will be able to tell the difference between the honest | one and a majority of fakes. With proof of stake there is nothing | beyond the will of the _current_ majority to lock in what is | right. If you feel the majority is always right, and you 'd be | comfortable with the majority being able to re-write all of the | history of the ownership of your currency, that is fine. I do not | feel I can trust the majority to be correct every minute or every | day forever. | everfree wrote: | This property is called Weak Subjectivity and is indeed a | compromise that PoS makes over PoW. However, in practice, the | trust assumptions aren't much higher than when you, say, | download node software from a source that you trust. | | > I do not feel I can trust the majority to be correct every | minute or every day forever. | | With weak subjectivity, you only have to trust them to be | correct on a timeframe of every few months. If consensus is | actually broken somehow over such a long period of time, there | will be big headlines about it and you'll be able to configure | your node accordingly. | | Further reading: | | https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov... | DickingAround wrote: | How do you know who to trust under Weak Subjectivity? It | amounts to saying "I'm pretty sure we'll be able to google it | and figure it out". But that then relies on these 3rd party | systems to be able to identify who to trust. How can you | really know who to trust for a protocol that's supposed to be | distributed and ownerless. If the US turned into Russia-level | of corruption, we essentially have to trust the owners of ETH | to successfully flee to somewhere that we can protect them. | What if they die or go bankrupt and no one agrees on who owns | ETH? | | If the answer is 'we'll trust the majority of users'. How do | you know who that majority users are? Is that literally | people the hold a lot of the ETH gas? So I know who has ETH | based on what software I download and I download software | based on who has ETH? And I know I'm in the right cycle of | that form because I googled it and found an 'authority'? | Risky. | exo762 wrote: | > Fundamentally, the proof of work system locks in longer | chains because of all the work that was done historically. | | VDFs used in Ethereum's hybrid PoS replicate this property to | large-enough extent. In case of PoW the resource you MUST spent | to replicate the chain is electric energy, lots of it. In case | of VDF it's mostly time. So one can imagine launching multiple | "fake" chains using stolen/bought private keys, but such chain | will get banned via software upgrade immediately after | detection. Very hard to pull off, impossible to pull of | multiple times. | | EDIT: my bad, stolen keys will get banned by the network | immediately and automatically. They break "equivocation" rule. | thefourthchime wrote: | Wasn't Casper going to do this like four years ago? They have | been talking about moving to PoS forever now. It still hasn't | happened. | suikadayo wrote: | it did happen (https://beaconcha.in/) and the merge will happen | either Q4 or Q1 next year. | vmception wrote: | I like how these kinds of quips will evaporate | | I just wonder what the next criticism will be | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | "Ooops, maybe PoS was a bad idea, sorry about the billions!" | vmception wrote: | Have fun with Ethereum Classic or future PoW fork with the | current state of Ethereum 1.x | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | I wont be having fun, as I wouldn't touch ETH. But you | acknowledge this situation is bad, and could be the cause | of more drama (potentially economy breaking drama)? | dodobirdlord wrote: | Eventually switching to PoS has been the established plan | for Etherium for years. Any drama about it is | manufactured. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Having an abstract plan to distract energy FUD warriors | is not the same as having a technical plan to replace | engines on moving vehicles. The drama is real, but it | requires putting down the hopium pipe. | vmception wrote: | One of my companies has been running an Eth2 node for 6 | months | | It fits the risk profile to let that team attempt to | deploy and merge a proof of stake network with sharding | milansuk wrote: | Reading the discussion here, I think most people don't have a | problem with PoS, but the transition from PoW to PoS. If you | compare PoS with the dominant client-server model, it's | significantly better! In the worst case, PoS can become a | "client-server". PoS is transparent and you know that your smart | contract will run exactly how it suppose to be executed. No FAANG | types of problems. | ThomPete wrote: | Ethereum doesn't have an energy problem, energy have an Ethereum | problem. | | Don't get me wrong, it's great that they are working on becoming | more effective but the idea that we should judge new technology | purely on it's environmental impact as we see these days is | counterproductive to progress. Progress from 0 to 1 will always | be less effective than the optimization that follows. | | We should be much more focused on how to make sure that any | technologies energy usage doesn't become an issue by creating | clean technologies with high energy density, which are reliable, | plentiful and scaleable and doesn't require backup sources. | AAA_Rating wrote: | Its price will also tumble 99% . | | People motives to get into crypto are clear. They want to | subtract themselves from government policy of constantly printing | money. BTC takes care of that and it's a 14 years brand which is | extremely politically expensive to make illegal | | On the other hand people are perfectly satisfied with their | experience on Youtube, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Ebay, JPMorgan | etc. which are the entities which Ethereum aims to disrupt | h4kor wrote: | Let's hope this will happen. It's time this blockchain hype | ends. | kaliali wrote: | I'm not satisfied with YouTube, amazon, Google, shitbook, eBay, | etc. I want to use a service that protects my data better and | drives those dirtbags out of business. | briefcomment wrote: | I'd like to see both if possible. Actually I would like to see | BCH replace USD (or a bigger block BTC). | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | I think you are correct. PoS coin is worthless coin. Imagine | the tales in the future -- about the potential trillion dollar | economy that was invented by some internet nerds who listened | too much to people that have no idea what they are talking | about, and drove it off a cliff with fancy talk of proof of | stake (which was actually engineered by the existing powers to | ensure their continued control of global economies). | kickopotomus wrote: | Why do you say that? What makes PoW so much more meritorious | than PoS in your eyes? | wing-_-nuts wrote: | >Its price will also tumble 99% | | From your lips to God's ears. If the price falls steeply there | will be a glut of gpus flooding the market and I'll finally be | able to build a pc. | vmception wrote: | Or you can do what the market is telling you to do and you'll | be able to afford a pc whenever you want | | The market signals are right there | DCKing wrote: | Good. Very good. | | This may be a radical take, but I think nations should introduce | some unprecedented legislation: ban trade of proof-of-work | cryptocurrencies. | | Don't ban their trade because they make poor financial products, | either because of rampant fraud or criminal activity. That's a | different argument and requires different approaches. Ban their | trade because global society shouldn't accept rampant incentives | to literally burn up energy [1] to make financial products. | Especially because proof-of-work simply just isn't necessary to | _have_ cryptocurrency. | | Banning their trade won't categorically stop PoW | cryptocurrencies. What it should do is completely tank their | value and get the world to move on to less destructive coins. | | I don't think there's any precedent for banning classes of | financial products for environmental reasons, but it's time to | create one. | | [1]: In addition to environmental reasons, there's probably also | economic ones. Mining burns through other scarce resources such | as chip production capacity, although the true impact there is | unclear. | fredfoobar wrote: | Holy shit, lol. | | This is an insane take. Proof of Stake is NOT secure, the | stakers can collude to reorganize the chain at almost no cost. | This is like the exact system we tried to get away from, the | USD system is also a Proof of Stake. | fredfoobar wrote: | There is no place for a PoS protocol layer on the internet, | I'm willing to die on this hill. | Graffur wrote: | Where can I learn more about this? | fredfoobar wrote: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrwgYDAoZV0 | asmos7 wrote: | way to devise a very specific way to kill the gravy train | cryptobros have been riding on for so long | BTCOG wrote: | Again with this same tired nonsense on Hacker News. Famous for | censoring worthwhile comments to death while leaving up | misinformed "curious" posts that mislead everyone. Bitcoin is | using half of the power as banking systems. Bitcoin is using | half of the power, of the gold industry. Might I suggest, if | you think you can suggest banning things for using too much | carbon, that you first quit working, quit driving your | vehicles, and disconnect the power in your house. I don't think | it's good for the environment in you doing so. In fact, your | carbon consumption should be banned. Turn your computers off. | Unplug your wasteful device chargers, you've had enough. | xyzzyz wrote: | The amount of energy used is only one aspect of the matter. | The other is value derived from that energy. I think it is | safe to say that regular banking provides not just twice the | value of Bitcoin, but in fact probably two orders of | magnitude more. Pretty much everyone uses regular banking, | while pretty much nobody uses Bitcoin, and not only they use | banking more, they use it many times a week or even a day. | The comparison is not even close. | lowkey wrote: | The regular banking system leaks your purchasing power over | time via the mechanism of inflation. The regular banking | system relies on the US Dollar which is backed by proof of | violence - aka the largest military industrial complex ever | created. Externalities are a net negative. It's important | to consider the externalities of every system. When | compared with the death and destruction and burning oil | fields in Iraq, Libya, Syria etc, the cost of proof of work | seems trite. | tom-_- wrote: | Something tells me that a user named "BTCOG" is not here to | provide rigorous objective analysis but okay lets attack | the strawman. | | The number of bitcoin addresses with a balance is 30 | million. The number of bank accounts is in the billions. | | As you said, BTC is two orders of magnitude less efficient | than banks assuming mining provides the same value to | people as ALL of the services banks provide including | loans, savings, and money transfer which IT DOES NOT. | BTCOG wrote: | Something tells me you just like to go on tangents nobody | was talking about here. Never once, have I ever said that | "Bitcoin is two orders of magnitude less efficient than | banks." | | That's where it stops, because what you've said is | nonsense. | tom-_- wrote: | Do you know how threaded comments work? | BTCOG wrote: | And when the comparison is not even close, why are you the | one making it? All you've stated was an old opinion and not | a fact about what is more useful, or how they are used. | It's totally fine for you to have just said "I don't | understand either banking or Bitcoin whatsoever." Bitcoin | is going to get a lot more global over the next several | years in it's use cases and for savings. I hope to see you | commenting later on after becoming more informed about our | current times of inflation and what the people want, vs | what is forced on everyone so that they have no way to save | hard money. The revolution isn't going to wait for everyone | who chooses to be truly ignorant about Bitcoin. And there | is only Bitcoin. | fuddle wrote: | I'd be in favour of banning the use of fossil fuels for | corporations mining proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. There is a | few examples of Bitcoin miners using Coal power sources! | disruptalot wrote: | This is one of those "Freakonomics" type ideas. | | On the surface this sounds like bitcoin's PoW use will simply | stop. It's actually the entire opposite. | | When governments ban it, they go after sizeable, identifiable | organizations running these operations, that is their only | choice. These operations are optimized in their energy usage, | because it's only in their interest to reduce their consumption | relative to the value of the coin they mine. | | The moment these operations are shutdown, there is a massive | sink in the hash rate, smaller operations and hobbyists will | rush in to fill it. Hash rate gradually climbs back up and | instead you have 10x the energy usage because you can no longer | run the PoW in a scalable way. | sdenton4 wrote: | The other choke point is conversion to and from USD. With a | law, BTC loses any corporate 'investment' (eg, Tesla), and | coinbase stops converting to/from USD, making it much more of | a pain to work with. | aeternum wrote: | This would be like playing whack-a-mole. Other PoW | cryptocurrencies are out there and it does not make sense | to just shut down the mining hardware. Miners will just | mine something else. | | The only answer that works is a carbon tax. | hocuspocus wrote: | I deleted my comment that was essentially saying the same. | For once, USD's extra-territorial jurisdiction could | definitely be put to good use. I don't understand why big | political parties haven't thought of that. It's an easy | win, and it would bother an insignificant portion of their | voter base. | stuaxo wrote: | https://www.americanscientist.org/article/freakonomics- | what-... | | We will see, the trouble with Freakanomics, is that it had | quite a few avoidable errors in it, so maybe it's not the | best example. | zepto wrote: | > On the surface this sounds like bitcoin's PoW use will | simply stop. It's actually the entire opposite. | | Not really. It wouldn't stop, but it would decline | substantially. | | Smaller operations and hobbyists only participate because | it's worth money to do so. | | Making Bitcoin illegal would kill the argument that it will | eventually displace fiat, and relegate it to being used only | for illegal purposes. | | The incentive to mine a currency that can only be used for | crime as a hobbyist would end up being low. | foerbert wrote: | That's assuming PoW cryptos would remain attractive to | smaller operations and hobbyists. I'm not sure that's a | given. If no business can change your coins to fiat, and no | business could accept your coins in the first place (not that | they really do now, but whatever), your options for getting | anything out of your coins is... what? Posting on craigslist | to find people to meet up for illicit localcoin transactions? | | And if you can't really do anything with your coins but have | your coins, why would people rush out to break the law to | mine them? | malka wrote: | Organized crime is as big as a country. | foerbert wrote: | Okay? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. | gbear605 wrote: | Organized crime wouldn't going to risk trading PoW | cryptocurrency. There's no benefit to them, since the | value of a bitcoin would immediately plummet. | mckeed wrote: | The idea was to ban trading, not mining. If Coinbase and all | the other legitimate companies that facilitate crypto markets | for U.S. citizens had to drop PoW coins it could tank the | price significantly and set the coin mining industry back to | when it wasn't such a huge problem for energy use and GPU | supply. Speculation would move to PoS currencies and BTC | would stay valuable, but would act more like an altcoin. | varispeed wrote: | Currently the trade of illegal drugs is banned. Have a look | how that goes. | rfrey wrote: | Unlike drugs which have limited substitutes (alcohol and | caffeine I guess), PoW currencies would have several | functionally equivalent replacements. I doubt we'd end up | ravaging underprivileged communities as they turned to | black market Bitcoin. | [deleted] | 627467 wrote: | The USD and the Zimbabwe dollar are functionally | equivalent, yet, I'm sure you're not saving in ZD. | hocuspocus wrote: | You're only proving our point. USD is a reasonable | currency for savings and/or as world-wide currency as | long as it's liquid, non-volatile, backed by a big, | stable and powerful economy. This could change, but not | overnight. | | BTC's main uses (speculation and laundering) are possible | only as long as it can be exchanged into fiat. This can | change tomorrow if the right strings are pulled. | Misdicorl wrote: | This is a terrible analogy. Drugs are inherently | desirable. There is nothing inherently desirable about | crypto coins | [deleted] | [deleted] | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | You can't have proof of stake drugs. (or other better | analogies for really really near substitutes) | | It turns out laws do sometimes have effects. | hocuspocus wrote: | If you can't speculate online and in a convenient, legal | way, the value of BTC and friends will certainly tank. | | Let people trade cryptocurrency to fiat in person all | they want, it's completely insignificant. | hahahanonono wrote: | trading is only a small portion of bitcoin's market cap. | most coins are outside of exchanges, in noncustodial cold | storage. even without smooth trading platforms people | will trade bitcoin peer-to-peer because bitcoin solves | real world problems | fredfoobar wrote: | https://bisq.network/ exists, you can trade bitcoin p2p | already. | [deleted] | [deleted] | socialist_coder wrote: | I think you're probably right. Money always finds a way. | zepto wrote: | The proposal is to stop Bitcoin/PoW being money. Other | forms of money will find a way. | exo762 wrote: | > smaller operations and hobbyists will rush in to fill it. | Hash rate gradually climbs back up and instead you have 10x | the energy usage because you can no longer run the PoW in a | scalable way. | | This is false. Miners will spend about the same amount of | money they get from block reward to run their operation. | Asymptotically, this money is spent to buy electricity. This | is the result of competitive pressure from other miners. What | you will observe instead is the same amount of electricity | burned but with 10x less hash rate. | swensel wrote: | Doesn't the mining difficulty decrease then though without | the massive mining farms, and thus the electricity required | decreases? I'm not an expert in crypto mining. | Nursie wrote: | But in the mean time the value is likely to have tanked, | because if they can't trivially be traded for national | currency, the interest in them will wither. | dimmke wrote: | This is the thing that has always bugged me about | cryptocurrency - people are only passionate about it | because they want to make more traditional currency with | it. Then they adopt this "decentralized" rhetoric. It's | always felt hollow. If owning/trading bitcoin became a | crime, it'd be done. | | Ever since Dogecoin had a moment, there's now a million | coins trying to engineer their own "moonshot". | | This is on top of the security issues and of course the | energy issues. Cryptocurrency is garbage. | gradys wrote: | Would Ethereum be able to make the switch to PoS if it had | never used PoW originally? How would they ensure a good | distribution of ownership? | mckeed wrote: | It's a difficult problem, but there are coins that have | managed it. Stellar has piggybacked on other services to | distribute - Facebook, Keybase, and Coinbase. There's an | energy-efficient memecoin that distributes based on | Folding@Home contributions that has become the #1 monthly F@H | team. | junseth wrote: | What if you simply don't know enough to not know that you're | both wrong and being lied to by the ETH marketing team? Would | you be embarrassed that you believed rhetoric? Probably means | you would be easily susceptible to most conspiracy theories. | nanidin wrote: | I've thought through this over the last few days and I don't | think it's viable unless all countries enact the ban at the | same time. Imagine country A bans trade or mining of PoW coins | - that puts the citizens of country A at a disadvantage to | citizens of other countries, and encourages holders of PoW | coins in country A to exfiltrate wealth and capital from | country A. | | You end up needing to solve the same type of problem that PoW | solves in order to enact a PoW ban simultaneously across all | countries - how can all parties trust that every other party is | being honest and will follow through (Byzantine Generals | problem)? | mfDjB wrote: | It might be worth noting that not all Proof-of-Work is just | finding hashes, newer cryptocurrencies make more economic and | intelligent use of the work used for proof. | jimbob45 wrote: | Fucking thank you. I get just as many downvotes when I suggest | this but it's very obviously the right thing to do. | | PoW doesn't scale. It eats up power needlessly and we're only | stuck on it because the original BTC was a PoW cryptocoin. | Simply banning trading of PoW coins would do mounds of good - | the crypto community would be better streamlined to move toward | PoS coins of the future and environmentalists wouldn't have to | waste their resources lobbying to ban BTC anymore. | lucasnortj wrote: | they should ban cryptos full stop. They have no use case except | for criminals | G3rn0ti wrote: | > Banning their trade won't categorically stop PoW | cryptocurrencies. What it should do is completely tank their | value and get the world to move on to less destructive coins. | | This ban needed to be internationally, though. Pretty difficult | to enforce on a global scale. And then it would only have a | short term influence on the price of, say, Bitcoin, until | enough "black" mining power emerges. | | I would just relax. Bitcoin is not going to destroy the planet. | In the long run it's going to be a niche financial tool | compared to the scale of Ethereum or other competitors | (Cardano, Solana or Algorand). It'll be the PoS enabled DeFi | networks that are going to disrupt the banking business. | BTCOG wrote: | In the long run, it's going to be very green. There are | Crypto Climate Accord groups working to ensure Bitcoin is | carbon-neutral by 2030. What is being done currently is | making leaps and bounds in using solar, hydro, wind and | trapped energy for bitcoin mining. It's pushing industry to | green. Not the phony narrative that's constantly pushed by | people who are quite literally, spreading allowed | disinformation across HackerNews for the past several years | on end. | swensel wrote: | Are the people downvoting the above comment considering | things like trapping excess flare gas [1]? This is energy | that is literally wasted otherwise, and would be vented | into the atmosphere, if not used for PoW mining (or put to | some other undetermined use, but PoW is the only profitable | alternative that has made sense so far vs just flaring the | gas). | | Maybe there need to be more guidelines around how to use | excess energy instead of coal, but to totally disregard | that PoW could be mined from excess energy is shortsighted. | Flare gas is just one example. | | [1] https://oilmanmagazine.com/how-and-why-natural-gas- | flaring-i... | dboat wrote: | Many industries do a lot of harm to the environment for | profits. On the spectrum of those, where do cryptos fall? | | I don't know and personally hold only a little bit, nothing I | would be very pained to lose, but it would certainly cause a | lot of economic harm to a lot of people to do what you propose. | The idea cannot be taken seriously without first answering my | question. | chrischattin wrote: | Youtube alone uses 2x the amout of energy as the entire | Bitcoin network, for perspective. | pavlov wrote: | That's just not true. | artifact_44 wrote: | ..they said authoritatively, and without evidence. | mytherin wrote: | Source? | chrischattin wrote: | Youtube uses 243.6 TWh - https://thefactsource.com/how- | much-electricity-does-youtube-... | | Bitcoin uses ~118 TWh - https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin- | energy-consumption | | Youtube souce is from 2019, Bitcoin one is current. | dtech wrote: | Youtube provides entertainment for literally billions of | people | | Bitcoin provides... idk a way for some people to make a lot | of money and some others to lose it?... | | Even if we say that BTC provides _some_ value by | transferring money etc. the amount of value per Watt is so | slanted its ridiculous to even make that argument. | chrischattin wrote: | Bitcoin is an independent financial network. It opens up | economic access to literally billions of people currently | shut out of the traditional financial system. I'd say | that's quite valuable to the human race. | selfhoster11 wrote: | Because entertainment is so useful? What's your utility | function to decide which one is more worthy of using | electricity? Why _should_ we use your utility function in | particular? | rapnie wrote: | ..to deliver quality video services to a billion people, | instead of handling a handful of transactions for some | greedy financial speculators. | artifact_44 wrote: | But.. I pay my YouTube subscription with my Bitcoin. :( | iabacu wrote: | > This may be a radical take, but I think nations should | introduce some unprecedented legislation: ban trade of proof of | work cryptocurrencies. | | That's not only radical, but a grotesque knee jerk reaction. | | If you think about renewable energy, there's a problem of | mismatched production with consumption and transmission. This | causes wasted energy (or energy that is very low value), which | makes renewable energy projects less viable. | | Sure, one obvious way to address that is to add batteries to | store such energy. Now, go mine (and refine) enough lithium to | build utility-scale batteries. That's a huge environmental | issue that no one wants to talk about, specially Tesla/Elon. | | What's a competitor to energy batteries? Proof-of-work mining | of bitcoin: it make renewable energy projects economically | viable, because the energy of low-usage times can be used to | mine bitcoin, which can pay for energy of high-usage times. | | If there's an environmental/carbon cost to BTC mining, then | attach a carbon tax to it (or something like that). | iabacu wrote: | By the way. | | If one thinks about tracking the carbon cost of a mined BTC | (based on the energy source used to mine it) such that a | carbon tax can be accurately exacted, the usage of blockchain | to track carbon offsets and cost is a pretty obvious thing | that comes to mind. | jMyles wrote: | Even if banning PoW were agreeable on logical grounds (ie, | overcoming the arguments of the sibling comments to this one), | is there any reason to believe that such a law will: | | * Reduce trade * Reduce value * Reduce carbon use? | | Is there a case ever where an illicit market found a price | equilibrium which was lower than the licit one? And, if such a | ban does cause the price go up, won't the same incentives cause | continued mining competition? | bko wrote: | If the government wants to put a higher price on energy or | carbon, it should do so. But it should not be the arbiter of | what's a worthy use of energy expenditure. | | I could see a lot of people make the argument the production of | a lot of energy intensive goods is not worth-while. | mckeed wrote: | PoW is different because it's energy use for its own sake. | | If carbon taxes go up, some things will no longer be worth | spending energy on, but crypto mining is just competitive, so | the value of mining will go up with the cost of energy and | keep using as much energy as ever. The only thing that can | stop it is reducing demand for the coins, which the | government is not even trying to do yet. | xur17 wrote: | > but crypto mining is just competitive, so the value of | mining will go up with the cost of energy and keep using as | much energy as ever. | | That is not true. If the cost of energy increases, mining / | hash rates will decrease. Miners are competing, and the | limit to the price they will pay for electricity is the | value of the cryptocurrency they are earning for the | activity. | strgcmc wrote: | If carbon taxes go up, miners will be incentivized to | pursue low/no-carbon alternative energy sources, thereby | accelerating the shift to cleaner energy. Mining can either | be viewed as creating a profit incentive where none existed | before, or at least enhancing the profit incentive even | further. Clean energy needs more profit incentives to | really scale adoption. | | I am all for carbon taxes, to shape the market towards | cleaner energy. And I do think it will successfully push | miners even faster towards adoption of other energy | sources. | barrkel wrote: | Government is made out of people. If the people don't want | the economy oriented around energy being put into finding | hashes, they have the right to vote. | webXL wrote: | The government _is_ made out of people and if history has | taught us anything, power corrupts those people. Income | inequality has only risen since the last financial crisis. | Decentralization of money is the whole point of this | exercise, and many believe Proof of Work is superior to | Proof of Stake because work is actually scarce. Once you | make it cheap to transact, that opens up all sorts of | attacks (spam, phishing) and devaluation. Since PoS can be | copied very easily, many corrupt governments will do just | that. | scrollaway wrote: | People are made out of opinions. If they don't like the way | others are voting, they have the right to convince others | of theirs. | | Which is to say, discussing on HN is a valid way to | contribute your opinion to society. Voting is not your only | voice. | Spivak wrote: | So why does the buck stop with government then? If enough | of us agree that a law should be passed then why not just | pass the law? Seems way easier to just make a rule than | try to individually convince everyone. | dmoy wrote: | It's an eventually sort-of-consistent system with a lot | of buffering and delay. | | if enough people agree that a law should be passed, and | it's a high enough priority, and the opinion stays that | way for a long time, then eventually enough politicians | get on board by virtue of pressure from their voting | base, and a law gets passed. | | It's not great. | | But on the other hand, near-immediate direct democracy is | also not great, because it leads to knee-jerk reactions | causing laws put in place. I'm thinking of stuff like the | USAPATRIOT Act, except worse. | TearsInTheRain wrote: | > Government is made out of people. | | _Maybe_ in theory but in actuality it is comprised of | moneyed interests which is why it needs to be limited to | preserve the freedom of the people. | micropresident wrote: | Obviously the people want to put energy towards finding | hashes or they wouldn't be doing it. What you're advocating | for is a minority of people who actually vote to influence | the government to send people with guns to stop the actions | of people who are voting with their _labor._ | | There will come a time when people like you -- who play God | over others -- are ousted from society. | mckeed wrote: | That's like saying people shouldn't try to ban meth | because meth cooks are working hard. | | It's just not a realistic outlook on how typical people | want society to function. Most people do not believe PoW | cryptocurrency is important to society. | pnt12 wrote: | "The people" who do it are less than 1% of "the people" a | government represents. | | There are already laws in most countries forbidding you | to litter, and you would never call that "playing God" - | it just happens that littering with crypto mining is a | multi billion dollar industry. | micropresident wrote: | I do call it playing God. In California there are laws | against littering and they are not enforced. You cannot | regulate change into the hearts of men. | bko wrote: | So there's no bounds as to what government should be able | to do, ethically or legally? | oehpr wrote: | But this isn't proposed regulation to prevent an "economy | oriented around energy being put into finding hashes". | | It's literally regulation to stop "Proof of work". Which is | a generic algorithm that can be applied to other | circumstances. | | It could have applications in CAPTCHA's, or anti-spam. | | It could be a critical component of other decentralized | technologies, not just blockchain crypto currencies. | | Making this math illegal JUST to kill cyptocurrencies seems | a tad much, right? | the_local_host wrote: | Isn't proof-of-work intrinsically wasteful though, as a | proxy for costing money (e.g. instead of paying money | directly for the right to mine BTC, you buy electricity | and burn it)? In any context other than cryptocurrencies | it seems like microtransactions would be a better choice. | pornel wrote: | Proof of Work used for decentralized consensus is | maximally wasteful by design. It has to be a race to burn | more resources than anyone else can. It's unfixable. | | Governments already have regulations for energy | efficiency, waste and pollution, and for most things it's | possible to negotiate reasonable limits. | | For PoW it's not possible. If you put an upper limit on | its wastefulness, it'll be a limit on its security. Even | if we had a Dyson Sphere, PoW would eventually eat more | than half of it just to be secure. | austincheney wrote: | Government should arbitrate inappropriate use of any utility | resource, including energy and water. In many cases such | restrictions already exist for water. | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | >it should not be the arbiter of what's a worthy use of | energy expenditure. | | I disagree. If we must cap the CO2 we can emit, we should | definitely favor basic needs over luxury. Here in France, the | government tried to set a carbon tax on gas (which is | required for many simply to commute to work, with no | affordable alternatives yet) but they refused to impose a tax | on jet fuel which is known to be used by the ultra rich to | fly their privates on the weekends (while they can afford | high speed trains). | | We should not just let money decide what's possible, when so | many are still in need of basic necessities. Many could pay a | 300% tax just to fly 10x a year across the globe (emitting | many, many times the carbon footprint of an average | household). How would that be fair, when the problem is not | what people pay but how the planet is becoming inhabitable? | VMG wrote: | my financial privacy is a basic need, and I need | cryptocurrency to achieve it | | I do not believe consensus mechanism other than PoW can | provide enough security for a cryptocurrency | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | I'm sure jet setters consider their private jet as a | basic need, too. | | What's interesting, is that you can gather ~300 random | citizens - including jet setters and cryptofans - and let | them think about it for two years in order to decide what | they considered as basic needs, on a consensus basis. And | then, we can organize a vote (e.g a referendum) to make | sure society finds a common ground on this (just like we | do for most things, such as banning crime). | | See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Convention_for | _Climat... for a good example. | | I bet PoW would be far down the list of basic needs but | it might, still. I like democracy (where people vote, not | their fortune). | VMG wrote: | my rights are not up for discussion, let alone a vote | Aqua wrote: | I cringe every time I see such comments. Ban bitcoin or ban | beef because it uses too much energy. | | Humanity will continue to require energy as it advances and | banning anything "because it uses too much energy" is a | ridiculous advice. How about we ban gold mining, or set quotas | on the number of children people may have, that will surely | contribute to our CO2 reduction goals. It's also Orwellian and | reminiscent of how the world looked like for citizens of the | USSR back in 1960-1990 | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | >How about we ban gold mining | | Why not? | | >or set quotas on the number of children people may have | | Some people consume 10x less energy than others, so blindly | capping the number of children does not seem a good idea. | What about capping the carbon footprint per person instead? | | We track and tax revenues (not perfectly but as well as we | can). We could definitely track and cap carbon emissions. | Sounds good to me! | rantwasp wrote: | yes. also let's start capping the amount of oxygen people | are allowed to breathe. I mean, without oxygen you cannot | produce co2, amiright? /s | Nursie wrote: | > Humanity will continue to require energy as it advances and | banning anything "because it uses too much energy" is a | ridiculous advice. | | Not right now it's not. Not when we have constraints on how | much CO2 we can pump into our atmosphere. | | Right now, and I mean _right now_ , when we're having huge | problems de-carbonising the planet's energy supplies and are | risking making life very uncomfortable for ourselves for | decades or centuries to come, limiting energy use is actually | one of the few levers we have to try to make a difference. | | In this current situation, bringing online a whole new mid- | sized country's worth of energy consumption for a _financial | instrument_ is ridiculous, and a huge own-goal for humanity. | dd36 wrote: | Communities tend to ban harmful things. | rantwasp wrote: | "communities". | | it's all fun and games until I ban something you rely on | for your livelihood | 0xB31B1B wrote: | We have banned a ton of things because they are bad for the | environment. It has worked and will continue to work. Things | like building design and construction standards are set to a | minimum environmental standard, why shouldn't | cryptocurrencies. | micropresident wrote: | The government hasn't banned beef, and yet there are now | vegetarian and vegan products all over. People vote with | their money. | | You're advocating for violence against people who do things | _you_ don 't like. Use your wallet and leave other people | alone. | Nursie wrote: | > You're advocating for violence | | Oh give over, this is ridiculous too. | | When other people are causing harm that affects | _everyone_ it 's perfectly reasonable to look at | legislation to kerb the behaviours. | | And no, that's not violence. No. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | When those same people are contributing to heat waves, | drought, and sea level rise, do you not consider that | violence as well? | rantwasp wrote: | whatever happened to the efficient market? | | i find views that want to ban anything for energy | consumption ridiculous. also what the people advocating for | this kind of thing are missing is that it's all fun and | games until something you rely gets banned because of | reasons. | | here are my proposals: | | the entire banking system is obviously using a lot of | power. how about we ban banks and go back to using paper | money. that's def more environmental friendly. /s | | electric cars run on energy that's generated with coal. | that's not cool. let's ban electric cars and keep driving | gas cars. they have been around for a long time and the | technology is so good that we actually pollute less with a | gas car /s | | the internet in general and datacenters in particular are | using a lot of power. let's ban datacenters. guaranteed | between environment afterwards /s | 0xB31B1B wrote: | We have banned low efficiency vehicles (CAFE standards), | we have banned refrigerants that are bad for the | environment (CFCs). We have things that clearly cause | massive amounts of societal harm (leaded gasoline). The | market didn't solve any of those issues, the government | did. I for one am extremely happy that we live in a world | that is not poisoned by lead and that still has a | functioning ozone layer. Its kind of silly that you are | equating bitcoin with the entire modern banking system. | The regulations to ban leaded gasoline didn't destroy | automobiles, they just made them change. Changes to proof | of stake aren't existential to BTC holders, but they are | existential to the rest of us. | | Also "until something you rely gets banned", what do you | rely on bitcoin for besides being a store of value? | chrischattin wrote: | Youtube alone uses 2x's the amount of energy of the Bitcoin | network. Ban Youtube? | leesalminen wrote: | I mean, all YouTube does is generate money for the ad- | tech industry. I think it should be banned before PoW | cryptos. | scrollaway wrote: | No that isn't all YouTube does thank you very much. It's | one of the greatest treasure troves of educational video | content. It has helped my life, career, and those of my | friends. It has probably contributed far more to | humanity's advance, in efficiency alone, than most other | websites of its kind. | | That you only use it to watch videos that bring zero gain | to your life is a You problem. | simonw wrote: | No it doesn't. | chrischattin wrote: | Yeah, it does. I posted sources in a reply to another | comment. Or, you can look it up yourself. | simonw wrote: | You quoted https://thefactsource.com/how-much- | electricity-does-youtube-... which says: | | "the internet uses 10% of the total electricity | consumption worldwide. How much of that is consumed by | Youtube? After Netflix and embedded videos, Youtube is | the third biggest global internet bandwidth eater. About | 11.4% of global internet traffic is consumed by Youtube" | | That figure assumes that the electricity usage of the | internet is exactly related to the amount of bandwidth - | so if YouTube uses 11.4% of the internet's total | bandwidth, that means that YouTube uses 11.4% of the | internet's total electricity consumption. | | That is a highly dubious assumption. | lovecg wrote: | Google is claiming to be Carbon neutral though, so not a | good comparison. | | https://sustainability.google/commitments/ | generj wrote: | YouTube also entertains hundreds of millions of people, | whereas crypto benefits the average person...how exactly? | | By enabling ransom ware attacks? Creating GPU shortages? | jude- wrote: | YouTube also promotes conspiracy theories, racism, anti- | intellectualism, authoritarianism, anti-vaxxing, and so | on. These things pretty severe negative externalities, to | put it mildly. So let's not pretend that YouTube's | existence is a net-positive for humanity; that remains to | be seen. | hunter2_ wrote: | I think the difference is that a means of building green | buildings and green cryptocurrencies have been proven | viable. Once the same happens for the category of product | YouTube falls into (which goes beyond just video | distribution), the non-green way can be eliminated. | schmorptron wrote: | No? Youtube's use of compute power serves a purpose that | is not quite literally wasting energy for the sake of it. | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | A quick google seems to turn up that this claim is from | thefactsource.com based on the internet uses 10% of | global power. And YouTube is 11% of internet traffic. So | 1% of global power. | | VS | | An estimate of Bitcoin power consumption by the Cambridge | Centre for Alternative Finance. | | I know which one I'm more prepared to believe. | | Even if this were true. I go on YouTube and can learn | things: recipes, FreeCad tutorials, coffee nerdery, | harmonica lessons. | | Bitcoin literally does nothing. | Spooky23 wrote: | Remember the infrastructure is one part of the equation. | The billions of devices consuming YouTube are running in | electricity as well. | | The virtue of energy use argument is just dumb. | kickopotomus wrote: | But again, read what the person you are responding to | wrote. YouTube provides something of value to millions. | PoW is not required for cryptocurrency to function. PoW | provides no value. It wastes time and energy for the sake | of wasting processor cycles. | swensel wrote: | Come on... PoW provides no value? So the almost $1 | trillion in Bitcoin is just, nothing? Not worth anything? | I think the people invested would beg to differ. | kickopotomus wrote: | There is no need for Bitcoin to use PoW. Bitcoin can | continue to exist using a different algorithm to | establish distributed trust. But since you brought up | Bitcoin, yes, I would say that it provides little value | to society in it's current state. It operates primarily | as a speculative investment rather than a true currency. | swensel wrote: | What would you propose the Bitcoin core team should | switch to? Have you looked into the other algorithms, the | feasibility of migrating of the existing network, etc.? | It sounds more to me like you've just written off | cryptocurrency in general. | | As far as I can tell PoW is the most proven consensus | mechanism so far. PoS may be promising though. ETH2 | successfully switching will be telling. | kickopotomus wrote: | I haven't written off anything. PoW is inherently flawed. | It does not scale and Bitcoin has proven that. Bitcoin | averages ~300K transactions a day while using more energy | than some countries. That is unacceptable. | [deleted] | Spooky23 wrote: | Says you. | | Electricity is a commodity and a utility. Who are you or | I to subjectively decide that a use is valuable or | virtuous? | | Is YouPorn worthy? Is MLB.tv valuable? What are the | criteria that you use to determine worth? | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | _Is YouPorn worthy? Is MLB.tv valuable?_ | | Yes because people like porn and baseball. | | Bitcoin is like gold. It's valuable because other people | say it's valuable. But nothing useful happens when you | mine crypto. Was I entertained? Did I learn something? | Are they producing a widget? Even gold can be made into | jewellery or used in electronics. Crypto literally just | uses power. | simonw wrote: | That article assumes that if YouTube is 11% of total | internet bandwidth then YouTube is 11% of total internet | electricity usage. That's a very dubious assumption. | webXL wrote: | > Bitcoin literally does nothing. | | Except make those little pieces of green paper in your | wallet look foolish. | Spooky23 wrote: | Building construction standards are a great example of | regulatory failure. | | By optimizing around energy conservation at all costs, we | have homes that cost 3x, held together with glue, | susceptible to mold, and filled with toxic crap like vinyl. | noja wrote: | Wow. Where to start on this one! | | Where do you see the problem in using less energy for a | crypto currency? Why not make a cryptocurrency that uses even | more energy? | pamplemoose wrote: | those currencies already exist. people can choose to use | them, while understanding the trade-offs. | artifact_44 wrote: | Because electricity costs money. When the cost of | electricity exceeds the value of coin you mine, you will | stop mining. If you make a coin that takes half as much | energy to mine, miners will just mine twice as much of it. | Its like y'all are just discovering capitalism for the | first time. | mrfusion wrote: | You people terrify me. | rantwasp wrote: | if you're afraid now, wait until you learn that these people | vote. | | democracy! f yeah! | 627467 wrote: | Government can already effectively (and is already | inadvertently doing so) prevent mining by manipulating energy | prices within it's jurisdiction. It does NOT mean that | government can easily ban the use of PoW blockchains. | | Miners will move to where is is profitable and will be | ultimately incentivized to find cheaper (ultimately cleaner) | means to mine. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Very bad. Ive got another radical take -- cypherpunks should | ban proof of stake cryptocurrencies. They are bad for freedom, | bad for decentralization, bad for store of value. Wall street | tricks attempting to put the genie back in the bottle. | | Proof of work is the only thing of value, the only distributed | consensus model that is secure and the only way forward for | store of value cryptocurrencies. | artifact_44 wrote: | 100% | savant_penguin wrote: | Sure, ban away all PoW crypto, but don't you dare touch my | YouTube cat videos and Netflix series ! (that likely use a TON | of bandwidth) | | Jokes aside it's really hard to decide what's reasonable energy | usage from waste. Ultimately the real question is who gets to | make that decision. | | And overall, the idea of government getting to decide what are | acceptable uses of energy and what isn't is actually terrifying | rvz wrote: | > This may be a radical take, but I think nations should | introduce some unprecedented legislation: ban trade of proof- | of-work cryptocurrencies. | | Unless you want to also ban servers or services that are using | deep learning training, decoding massive videos and livestreams | on storage systems that are also burning up the planet. | | It's not fine to allow PoW cryptocurrencies to continue to burn | the planet but collecting mass amounts of user data and using | wasteful deep learning training continuously is fine to burn up | the planet on GCP, AWS and Azure? | dehrmann wrote: | > ban trade of proof of work cryptocurrencies. | | I'm a crypto-skeptic, but why would I ever hold a | crpytocurrency in that scenario? If governments would ban it | for environmental goals, they'll ban it for political goals, | too. | | The only interesting bit is cryptocurrencies would have to | legitimately bring something new to the table that's actually | better than the existing financial system in order to be | viable. | satyrnein wrote: | If you want less carbon burned, tax carbon. I'm skeptical of | cryptocurrency, but the idea that regulators, already captured | by banks, should aggressively ban new financial products that | may one day threaten the incumbents makes me wary. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | If anything the regulatory solution would be to find the ways | in which demand for cryptocurrency exists because of failures | in the existing financial system, and fix them so that the | existing financial system can satisfy them. Allow bank | accounts that work exactly like coin wallets, but rely on the | banking system rather than PoW. | | An obvious example is the existence of pseudonymous digital | payments. Given that cryptocurrency already exists, and will | continue to exist for all _illicit_ activities even if you | ban it, you might as well let people open numbered accounts | at a bank. | | Do this for any other advantage cryptocurrency has over the | existing banking system and there is no more demand for | cryptocurrency. And without demand, the price crashes and | people stop burning coal to mine it. | Nursie wrote: | > If you want less carbon burned, tax carbon. | | What if we want to decide that we want to minimise carbon, | but some use of energy is preferable (for instance | consumer/home use) to bootstrapping new financial products? | chii wrote: | > but some use of energy is preferable | | and that's where the price signals what is preferable. The | correct allocation of energy should be based on the price | people are willing to pay for the energy. Like any other | commodity. | Nursie wrote: | > The correct allocation of energy should be based on the | price people are willing to pay for the energy. | | Why? Why is that 'correct'? Why would we not want to | ensure the population has affordable energy for home use, | but others seeking to make a profit from it rather than | use it for basic needs pay more? | | You phrase your reply as some sort of moral absolute, but | it's nothing of the sort. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > Why would we not want to ensure the population has | affordable energy for home use, but others seeking to | make a profit from it rather than use it for basic needs | pay more? | | Because we already have the former and we don't need the | latter. | | A carbon tax with a dividend doesn't make life harder for | lower income people, because they already have below- | average energy consumption (wealthier people have bigger | houses that need more heat etc.) and as a result the | dividend would be larger than what they pay in tax. | | But you still want them to have good incentives. If they | can use the dividend to switch to solar or buy an | electric car, you want them to do this, because that's | the whole point. | | Meanwhile there is no reason to charge profit-seeking | enterprises _more_ than the true cost of their usage, | because all that 's doing is inhibiting economically | productive activity. Aluminum smelting uses a tremendous | amount of electricity, but what you want is to cause them | to switch to non-carbon electrical generation, not to | shut down operations. | Nursie wrote: | > A carbon tax with a dividend | | Is not what was being proposed in the free-market | fundamentalist post I was replying to. | | > Meanwhile there is no reason to charge profit-seeking | enterprises more than the true cost of their usage | | But there might be if it's merely "burning energy for a | new financial product", society might decide that it's | not worth the carbon to have that around, regardless of | tax, but that aluminium is a useful physical product. | | We have differential taxes on all sorts of things, I | don't see why they would be so wrong here. | | But even given all that, my comment you're replying to | was specifically adressing the "price _should_ be the | only indicator " assertions in the libertarian spiel | above. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > Is not what was being proposed in the free-market | fundamentalist post I was replying to. | | A carbon tax with a dividend _is_ the free-market | fundamentalist proposal. Markets require externalities to | be priced and a dividend is the most economically | efficient use of the revenue so generated. | | > But there might be if it's merely "burning energy for a | new financial product", society might decide that it's | not worth the carbon to have that around, regardless of | tax, but that aluminium is a useful physical product. | | The way of determining which is pricing. If society | values "new financial product" more than the cost of the | energy, including the carbon tax, then it gets produced. | If the carbon tax increases energy costs to the point | that "new financial product" isn't viable in the market, | it doesn't. Or it switches to non-carbon electrical | generation at which point you can't blame them for | climate change anymore and they're expediting the | transition to renewable energy by financing the creation | of generating capacity and increasing economies of scale. | Nursie wrote: | > A carbon tax with a dividend is the free-market | fundamentalist proposal. | | It's specifically not the one I was replying to - | | "The correct allocation of energy should be based on the | price people are willing to pay for the energy. Like any | other commodity." | | > The way of determining which is pricing. | | It's not the only way, it's not even the only way that's | employed right now in a lot of places, for instance we | don't apply sales tax to items we deem 'essential' here | in the UK, have a 5% rate for some things and 20% for | 'luxuries'. | | Price is not the only mechanism available, nor is it | always the best one. | AnthonyMouse wrote: | > "The correct allocation of energy should be based on | the price people are willing to pay for the energy. Like | any other commodity." | | This is in no way inconsistent with the need to price | externalities, which is the default assumption in free | market theories. (Otherwise you have obvious problems | with people dumping industrial waste into rivers etc.) | | > It's not the only way, it's not even the only way | that's employed right now in a lot of places, for | instance we don't apply sales tax to items we deem | 'essential' here in the UK, have a 5% rate for some | things and 20% for 'luxuries'. | | Just because somebody does something doesn't make it a | good idea. | | Things like that have counterintuitive economic | consequences. See what subsidized student loans do to | education prices. Is this what we want for "essential" | goods? | | If we do that, the tax rate has to be higher for | non-"essential" goods in order to generate a given amount | of revenue. Now you're into central planning to determine | what's "essential" and what isn't. Is a laptop a luxury | good? A poor person might need one. What about an | electric car? Meanwhile every such decision of what to | tax more is subject to lobbying and corruption. | | If you want to help the poor, give them money. They know | what's "essential" to them better than the bureaucracy | does. | Nursie wrote: | > This is in no way inconsistent with the need to price | externalities, which is the default assumption in free | market theories. | | There's nothing in free markets that will make this | happen without regulation, as evidenced by the fact that | it so far hasn't happened. | | > Just because somebody does something doesn't make it a | good idea. | | No, but it also doesn't make it impossible or something | which can just be dismissed. There blatantly _are_ | mechanisms that can be used other than the ones you | mentioned. You don 't like them, that's not the same as | them not existing. | | However ridiculous you want to make the results - oh my | god now you're into planning! - this already happens in | quite a number of pretty successful countries, so it's | clearly not some bizarre fantasy. | toomanybeersies wrote: | You're begging the question a bit there. I'm not at all | convinced that the free market is the optimal method for | allocating scarce resources, especially energy. Just look | at how well that went in Texas earlier this year. | GhostVII wrote: | Subsidize certain usages of electricity then. Or pay for | the first x units of electricity for each household. | Nursie wrote: | Indeed, or make it punishingly expensive for some uses, | which is tantamount to a ban. | | That's the point - it's perfectly fine for a society to | decide what energy can and can't be used for, because we | don't live in a time when we have infinite, | environmentally neutral power available to us. | beowulfey wrote: | A carbon tax would filter down to the electricity consumer | cost. I dont know about you, but I dont want to pay more for | electricity so other people can burn electricity for virtual | money. | | Unless you are suggesting taxing crypto itself, in which | case... sure! | eeperson wrote: | Consumers can make a net profit if the tax revenue is paid | as a dividend to citizens. There are number of papers about | this if you are interested [1]. | | [1] - https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-pricing- | studies/ | lifty wrote: | Yes, because that's the negative externality, the carbon | that you dump in the atmosphere by consuming electricty. | Would you be willing to pay more so that videogaming is not | banned as well, or would you ban that too? | | Also, you can make the tax progressive so that the high | consumers can pay much more. | disruptalot wrote: | Why should anyone pay for your consumption and values when | you aren't willing to pay for others? | tshaddox wrote: | I don't want to pay more for fancy sports cars or houses | because other people are willing to pay higher prices for | those things either. | jlmorton wrote: | As others have said, a carbon tax can be designed to refund | either the entire amount, or a portion of the amount back | to consumers, which might also transform it into a non- | regressive tax. | | But perhaps more importantly, you wouldn't be taxed because | others are using electricity for virtual money. You would | be taxed because your carbon emissions are causing climate | change, and to encourage you to reduce energy usage where | possible. | Spooky23 wrote: | Why is your electricity use posting on HN more virtuous | than making Bitcoin? | micropresident wrote: | Crypto is already taxed. | | All money has a cost on society. You have to do something | to maintain its value. You don't think wars in the middle | east -- to maintain the petrodollar -- have an | environmental impact? | | And when it isn't oil it'll be fights over germanium and | lithium veins. | | If you actually cared to do more than sit in a chair -- | advocating random things you didn't research -- you'd be | advocating for Thorium power. Thorium is nearly as abundant | as lead -- it's all over the place -- and it's much more | clean and less dangerous than even solar or wind. | cedricd wrote: | That's a common take, but a well-designed carbon tax could | be made revenue-neutral and non-regressive. | | In other words, the amount it takes in can be given back to | the average person -- in forms of tax rebates, investment | in public transit, education, whatever. In an ideal world a | carbon tax would have no adverse impact on lower and middle | class people. | | I should also add that in that world higher electricity | cost due to carbon tax is a good thing -- it'll help | carbon-neutral sources of energy to compete and replace the | more dirty forms. Which is exactly what we want. | beowulfey wrote: | I have nothing against carbon taxes actually would love | to see them implemented, but I am not sure how they would | help prevent excessive energy use due to crypto. OP was | suggesting a carbon tax instead of direct regulation, but | I don't quite get how it would dissuade crypto use | without increasing electricity costs. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | If we are passing radical legislation that cuts across borders | I'd much rather see a carbon/greenhouse gas tax. | txsoftwaredev wrote: | We should impose a large tax on data centers for their | massive energy usage to power such "valuable" resources like | Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | Who the fuck is gonna determine what is valuable? | | A re-distributive carbon tax incentivizes efficiency, | doesn't hit stuff like renewables and allows individuals to | keep on choosing what they want to do with their life. | | Just because you don't find facebook valuable doesn't mean | that others feel the same way. | ryanmarsh wrote: | Banning a certain kind of computation is a novel idea. Was this | a knee jerk reaction or have you considered all the other types | of computation that should not be allowed and why? Do we have | an empirical understanding of the negative impacts of these | specific kinds of computation, their general threat to | humanity, and the negative side effects of regulation? | anm89 wrote: | How do you ban open source software that millions of people | already have? It's like banning algebra or something. You can | tell people they can't do it but you can only truly ban it to | the extent that you can micro monitor and enforce the actions | of every person interested in it. | | To me this illustrates a lack of understanding of the space. | pamplemoose wrote: | i'd prefer you ban cars | GhostVII wrote: | How about we just make people pay for their negative | externalities, and let them do whatever they want. Tonnes of | things people do are wasteful, no one needs a sports car | either, but for some people it is worth paying extra for it. | Why should it matter what I'm using my electricity for as long | as I pay for the negative effects. | | If you want to encourage other uses of electricity, subsidize | them, don't just ban arbitrary forms of consumption. | Nursie wrote: | > How about we just make people pay for their negative | externalities, and let them do whatever they want. | | Well, for one, because that tends to mean "rich folks and | large companies can act with impunity, everyone else not so | much". | | For two, we actually do discriminate quite happily between | different uses of things. Maybe it's OK to keep energy prices | low for households, as a compromise, but not for crypto | mining? | GhostVII wrote: | Whats the problem with rich fold acting with impunity, so | long as they pay for what they use? If someone burns enough | electricity to power 1000 homes, but they pay for the | environmental impact, and are charged enough for the | electricity to fund building more generation capacity, | that's a net win. Giving each household some amount of free | or subsidized power makes sense. If they want to burn that | power crypto mining that's their decision. | Nursie wrote: | > If someone burns enough electricity to power 1000 | homes, but they pay for the environmental impact ... | | Well, firstly, are we even sure that's really possible? | | > Giving each household some amount of free or subsidized | power makes sense | | Which is basically exactly what I was talking about - we | can and do decide that some uses are better than others, | and use regulation (some of which may be tax or credit) | to achieve that. | | We already do this. I'm not sure why people are so aghast | that we might do it some more for PoW cryptocurrencies. | woeirua wrote: | We don't need to ban PoW crypto entirely, just tax the carbon | emissions associated with it. If miners can switch their entire | operation to geothermal in Iceland, then why should I care? | micropresident wrote: | Yeah man, Government should point guns at people who don't | comply with your ideology! Let's advocate violence against | people because they do stuff we don't like! | tromp wrote: | > proof-of-work simply just isn't necessary to have | cryptocurrency. | | It seems kind of necessary to achieve wide distribution and | avoid wealth concentration. | matheusmoreira wrote: | We're supposed to just ban uses of energy we don't like? Why | not a complete and total ban on electricity consumption by the | adtech industry? Surveillance capitalism does more damage to | society than these little coins ever will. | Spooky23 wrote: | I'm sure the recent, existential hand-wringing over Bitcoin | energy consumption has nothing at all to do with upcoming | ethereum changes. | | It's all bullshit and hype -- the crypto equivalent of the | Chick-Fil-A cows saying "eat more chicken". | dheera wrote: | By banning them, don't you increase their value by creating | scarcity? | lhorie wrote: | I can see that this idea comes from a place of good intentions, | but I think this is a slippery slope. With this idea, PoW | Ethereum is banned, but PoS Ethereum is ok; how does one even | regulate that? And what of things like Chia (proof of space, | i.e. "let's hog hard drives")? And what about L2 solutions? And | how much is too much? Should Ethereum 2 be banned if Nano is | shown to be more scalable? Where does one draw the line? | | I think that at some point, PoW will become so economically | unfeasible that it'll simply make more sense for miners to | ditch those coins and whale up on PoS ones. | hannofcart wrote: | That's a slippery slope of an argument. | | If the government starts arbitrating on what is a judicious use | of energy on environmental grounds, then you're a short step | away from banning, say, beef production. | Der_Einzige wrote: | Forget just the environmental issues. The price of commodity | hardware for AI research is astronomical right now (try getting | into deep learning right now, I dare you!). Crypto is directly | trading off with AI research and game development. | artifact_44 wrote: | Gary Larson: School for the gifted. | lancemurdock wrote: | While the energy consumption of bitcoin is debatable due to the | unknown usage of clean, renewable energy (some reports are at | 75%) to to secure the network and prevent bad actors, even for | arguments sake, we can agree the energy consumption is | extremely large. We also do not know how much energy is | required to maintain SWIFT, or the global ACH network and other | banking services. | | However, some of the biggest plagues to society are rooted in | central banking policies that over time devalue a nations | currency through excessive money printing backed by nothing, or | gambling via derivatives that when a bubble pops requires | bailouts. Even worse, where we are now is done via quantitative | easing which is a fancy word for more money printing to buy | government debts to keep the economy afloat. If Bitcoin or | other cryptocurrencies can provide all the same services banks | offer (borrowing/lending/saving) and be backed by a finite | number ensuring value over time then we, as a society will be | less manipulated by politics and therefore experience deflation | which will could close wealth gaps. | | Bitcoin may have an energy problem but the problems it aims to | solve are extremely important as well. "Necessity is the mother | of invention." If Bitcoin can really solve some areas maybe the | conversation should be about how can get 100% of BTC energy | consumption to be renewable. | kerng wrote: | I agree that this is good - the world probably only needs one | blockchain that is secured by PoW for the most fundamental use | cases. | | Ethereum will drive and that is good - but it solves different | problems compared to Bitcoin. | | In regards to banning PoW, sounds like the net neutrality | discussions honestly... so to me that does not make sense for | the same reasons. | | And here is the kicker, because its permissionless, it can't be | stopped. | chmike wrote: | > ban trade of PoW cryptocurrencies | | That might cause a financial crash of the cryptocurrency | market, with the trust issues, etc. It wouldn't be wise. | schmorptron wrote: | would be funny to look at the internet for a few days though | Trias11 wrote: | Think about it from the other side. | | How about continuing research and development of solutions | providing cheaper, greener energy instead of sparking righteous | war against something that consumes energy based on incompetent | social media fart? | | The loudest voices against something are typically hypocrites | that happily fly on their gas guzzling private jets bitching | about people driving their oh so inefficient cars to work. | fvdessen wrote: | PoS is not just a more environmentally version of PoW. It is a | lot more vulnerable to state level actors. If the state takes | over / subverts / influences the limited number of | stakeholders, then it is game over. | | With PoW the state can influence the existing miners, but | cannot prevent new independent miners to pop up and counter | act. | CarlBeek wrote: | There are 141,139 validators active in Ethereum as we speak | (source: https://beaconcha.in/), corrupting that many people | is very difficult. There are smaller PoS systems with eg. | tens of validators which are more susceptible to state | capture. | | Bitcoin (the network with the most mining effort) lost 25% of | their hashing power due to blackouts in Xinjiang. (Soure: htt | ps://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1384938089748041730?s...) | State capture of a majority of Bitcoin miners is | comparatively easy. | | In addition, independent miners have less hardware and that | hardware is generally less efficient when compared to the | large ASIC farms. In reality a recovery would probably | require social consensus and a hard fork | eeegnu wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong since I've only read the brief | overview of how validators work on ethereum.org, but 141k | validators doesn't mean anything when every validator is | independent / anonymous and someone with 32k eth staked is | actually one entity taking on the role of 1000 validators. | meowkit wrote: | But that doesn't mean all of those validators will be in | the same voting committee, or that any of them will be | selected to propose a new block. | | Many of you in this thread need to read up on how the | staking is designed to work. | eeegnu wrote: | The point is that the parent comment conflated validators | with people, whereas one person or entity can control | many validators. That doesn't say anything about it being | better or worse than PoW, but it's disingenuous to claim | that an attack needs to compromise so many individual | people rather than potentially just a few entities that | control vast quantities of eth. | fvdessen wrote: | Corrupting many people is easy if you are a superpower and | can make laws that affect many people. | | With PoW you can corrupt many miners, but the other | superpowers can spawn new miners to counter act. | micropresident wrote: | Yeah, and the way they are issuing rewards means there's an | incentive to split your validation across multiple nodes to | increase your changes at getting rewards. Each one of these | costs electricity to run both in terms of bandwidth and | electricity. | | And other methods introduce the possibility of stake | grinding. | | _BOTH_ converge to the same energy usage as mining. | | OTOH, the legacy financial system is significantly more | energy intensive for a given financial network value. You | don't think banks and wars in the middle east to maintain | the value of the network have an environmental impact? | pamplemoose wrote: | or you can fork and remove the bad actors, burning all their | coins. good luck with their next attack. in contrast, you | can't burn an attackers fleet of miners | micropresident wrote: | What do you think a PoW change does when the PoW is being | done by ASICs? | | Slashing stake is significantly more arbitrary. You | basically need to reset the coin's ledger in order for it | to make any sense. | nootropicat wrote: | >What do you think a PoW change does when the PoW is | being done by ASICs | | It's only possible once, and this move is so obviously | predictable any determined attacker is going to have gpus | ready. | micropresident wrote: | Repeating "ultrasound money" memes. That specific meme | has to do with state level attackers blowing up mining | farms. It has nothing to do with changing issuance. And | the entire premise is that an external force comes in and | tries to co-opt it. | | That isn't relevant to the conversation of stakers having | misaligned incentives to change the rules. The most a | state level actor can do is censor transactions if they | were to take over a chain. | | With PoS you'd need to slash the validators stake on a | fork; which isn't going to happen because the stakers | _run the validators_ everyone is using. You already _saw | this_ with the steemit takeover. | | In PoW coins, the miners and validating economic nodes | are two separate groups. Watch what happens when | exchanges slip over to Eth2 nodes and call it Eth. | | During the BCHA/BCH split the exchanges were the ones | that decided the ticker. Most users have ZERO CLUE about | what happened. They went on their with their lives | calling the fork the exchanges chose BCH. Once exchanges | are validators there is no bulwark against changes. | nootropicat wrote: | >With PoS you'd need to slash the validators stake on a | fork; which isn't going to happen because the stakers run | the validators everyone is using. | | Sorry but I don't see your point here. A fork inherently | requires action, it's enough to force a node to follow a | different block from some height. At that point the | attacker would get penalized for being offline. Outright | deletion would require code modification. It's even | possible to automate a minority fork in the case of | censorship, although this capability doesn't exist yet. | | >You already saw this with the steemit takeover. | | Steem isn't even PoS, it's dPoS. Even in this case users | successfully created a fork called Hive and removed | Justin Sun's coins. | fvdessen wrote: | > The most a state level actor can do is censor | transactions if they were to take over a chain. | | Which is the exact thing state level actors want to do ! | | What is the use of crypto if the state can ban me or my | country from it ? Isn't that exactly what | decentralisation was supposed to prevent ? | nootropicat wrote: | The exact opposite is true. It's always possible for a state | to obtain enough mining hardware - PoW is hopelessly | insecure. It also has infinite economies of scale inevitably | leading to absolute centralization even absent state attack. | Once majority of hashrate is achieved, profits nearly double | as minority can be censored. That's the inevitable end state | of PoW. | | PoS is resistant to state attacks because it would require | buying up tokens on an impossible scale, and in the case an | attack somehow succeeds a fork can be created that deletes | the hostile stake. This can be repeated indefinitely. That's | impossible in PoW more than once, once a gpu PoW gets | attacked it's over. | | PoS has no economies of scale, so contrary to PoW it can stay | decentralized forever. There's no way to make existing | stakers unprofitable by adding more nodes, like it's possible | with mining hardware in PoW. | | PoW is also vulnerable to takeover of existing miners because | mining at scale requires big industrial warehouses with | industrial power owned by registered companies. Impossible to | hide. PoS can run on anonymous home nodes. | | In every single security and decentralization aspect PoW is | hopelessly inferior to PoS. | swensel wrote: | Are there any proven PoS coins out there yet that have | demonstrated resiliency under an attack? Honest question. | nootropicat wrote: | I don't know of any PoS coins that were attacked. | Contrary to PoW, PoS is used for a very general category | and differences between multiple versions are great. Many | don't even have slashing making them a trust-based system | (like Cardano) and I don't think they should be | considered proof of stake - because without slashing | nothing is actually at stake. | | Additionally except for eth all have the fundamental | problem of extremely centralized distribution. This [1] | extreme centralization is representative of new VC coins. | That tiny sliver of 'Coinlist (unlocked auction) 4.3%' is | the only part that was available to non-insiders. | | [1] https://icodrops.com/wp- | content/uploads/2018/04/Solano-token... | swensel wrote: | Yes, I'd be curious what some PoS coin experts have to | say about the centralization concern of PoS, and how | network security and uptime is guaranteed in a PoS | network that doesn't have slashing. | | I'm also wondering about the resiliency of PoS. The PoW | used in Bitcoin has demonstrated resiliency against | attacks, and none of the attacks have been successful so | far, that I know of. | nootropicat wrote: | >The PoW used in Bitcoin has demonstrated resiliency | against attacks | | Multiple PoW coins have been successfully attacked, like | ETC. Because they are already on GPUs there's no fix - | just hope it doesn't repeat. Those successful attacks | prove that any attack on PoW is only a question of | external resources (sha256 ASICs for btc). | | It's also surprisingly hard to profit from a 51% attack | on pure speculation coins like btc or etc because next to | zero actual economic activity is happening on them, which | is why such attacks were rare and small in scope. The | best you can actually do is to try to double spend an | exchange. If they were actually used for real commerce | profit becomes much easier. It could also become a | military goal - if Iran relied on a PoW-coin for its | economy, blocking their coins would destroy their | economy. | | This is one of the reasons why ethereum absolutely must | switch to PoS - PoW is extremely insecure for smart | contracts because there are many more ways to profit from | an attack, like censoring price updates for defi. | swensel wrote: | I'm aware of the ETC attacks. I don't think ETC can | really be compared to BTC though. The ETC network is | composed of the idealistic (or maybe stubborn) folks who | didn't want to switch over to the new ETH chain after the | DAO hack. I'm not saying ETC has no merit, but it didn't | have the same network resilience due to the split. | | Seems like you know a lot about PoS, would you be willing | to check out my other comments on this post | (https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=swensel)? I've | covered some concerns / questions that I have about PoS | that maybe you can answer in more detail. | danlugo92 wrote: | PoW can also fork. | | It's not just miners, it's also full nodes that validate. | | Full nodes can disagree with miners: instant fork. | | If say Putin would acquire 51% of mining hash rate people | would realize (before he gets there) and would fork. | | My comment is not in support or against PoW, I'm just | stating the fact that PoW isn't inherently unsafer than | PoS. | nootropicat wrote: | That's only possible once - from asic PoW to a gpu/cpu | PoW. | | After that, if the fork becomes popular, the attacker | moves and attacks it again. Are people supposed to fork | once per week? At that point it's not PoW consensus | anymore, because the interventions move from emergency to | normal, and you're under something else. | fvdessen wrote: | > PoS is resistant to state attacks because it would | require buying up tokens on an impossible scale | | You don't need to buy the tokens. You make laws which the | stakers have to follow, otherwise you seize their tokens | for breaking the law. You can also use electronic warfare | to steal the tokens of stakers outside your juridiction. If | you are doing this as a big country such as USA/China, then | other stakers might be tempted not to fork because a | compromised system that works with those countries might | still be more valuable than an uncompromised system that | has not access to a large part of the world economy. | nootropicat wrote: | This is only enforceable against miners, not stakers. | Stakers can trivially hide, miners can't. | | >otherwise you seize their tokens for breaking the law. | | that's not possible, there's no mechanism to seize eth. | What can be trivially seized, though, are physical | miners. | hajile wrote: | Don't forget the billionaire problem either. | | Proof of Stake as setup gives all the power to | people/companies who have large amounts of liquid assets. | | Consider Amazon, they keep a rolling window of cash in- | between when an item is sold and when the seller gets paid. | This effectively gives them billions in interest-free | capital. If this were Etherium, it would translate into huge | amounts of voting power. | | Likewise, if/when people deposit their etherium into banks, | those banks can then leverage that "free" capital to grab | huge voting stakes that wouldn't otherwise exist (because no | person living paycheck to paycheck has the equivalent of 100k | sitting around). | | This leverage simply does not exist with proof of work. | useful wrote: | I'd much rather put kwh limits on proof of work. That would | stop large farms that aren't green. | | Outside of ethereum, proof of stake is no different than a | database. The ownership is so centralized that you only have | 3-5 people/organizations approving everything. | | The whole point of crypto was to be decentralized, proof of | stake is not that. Cardano, solana, they all are pointless as a | token because the whole supply is largely owned by a few | people. | rattlesnakedave wrote: | Who decides what is a good use of energy and what isn't? | cactus2093 wrote: | This certainly seems like an unnecessarily oppressive stance to | take, all effectively at the whim of your own personal | aesthetics. | | There are tons of things that people do that I might deem not | worth the environmental impact, like flying a hundred thousand | miles a year for business, or eating beef, or driving to work | every day, or having bigger houses and lawns than they need. | Seems kind of arbitrary to allow most wasteful things that | people do but draw a line at being able to participate in a | certain kind of blockchain. The per-person impact of holding | and transacting with bitcoin is not egregiously high compared | to all the other things people do in their day to day life. | | And based on ethereum's move here, perhaps people are starting | to vote with their wallets anyway and such dramatic limiting | measures aren't needed? | rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: | >people are starting to vote with their wallets anyway | | Did you mean "the rich"? | cactus2093 wrote: | "The Big Scary Scare Quotes Rich That We Should Be Eating"? | No, that's not exclusively who I mean. | macacobranco wrote: | What about ASIC resistant PoW? Should it be banned too? | BenoitEssiambre wrote: | The economic and monetary risks of deflationary coins are | potentially much greater than the environmental risks imo (Even | Douglas Adams tried to warn us: | https://benoitessiambre.com/specter.html ). | | You don't necessarily need to ban the coins to fix this aspect | however, just make sure they don't get integrated in the | financial system too much. They're basically digital gold. Gold | was ok until central banks tried to anchor to it which caused | the Great Depression and maybe even WWII. | generalizations wrote: | This just sounds like an excuse to ban something that | governments (read: the US) are trying to bring under control. | | First it was 'but criminals use it'. Now it's 'think of the | environment'. What's the next excuse going to be? | rmtech wrote: | Proof-of-work cryptocurrencies are in the process of banning | themselves. | | All that wasted energy is paid for by the holders, and proof- | of-stake is just more financially attractive. | | No government intervention is required IMO. | capableweb wrote: | > All that wasted energy is paid for by the holders | | Could you explain me what energy is "wasted" in Proof-of-Work | and also how the people currently holding the cryptocurrency | is paying for that "waste"? | | AFAIK, the same number of blocks are made no matter how many | transactions are being made or how many holders there are (or | how much each holder "holds"), so the energy consumption of | Bitcoin remains more or less the same during an hour, only | slowly rising as more miners get on-boarded. But the energy | consumption of those brought online remains the same over the | lifetime of the miner instance itself. | DickingAround wrote: | As a technical person, I think we should be a little more | careful than to _ban_ a technology because there 's a | _proposal_ for a newer tech that could work (knowing if it | works is harder than a posting on a website saying it 's going | great in beta). Crypto at all is risky and the tech is | uncertain. Seems pretty extreme to get the guns involved on the | premise someone somewhere can do it better. | selfhoster11 wrote: | So burning electricity on running a cryptocurrency is not | right, but burning electricity on running servers for Facebook | or user tracking is all right? If that's the case, who's the | arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use case? | | If that's not the case, how do you propose to enforce that all | use cases use less electricity, and how do you punish those who | use too much? | takeda wrote: | > So burning electricity on running a cryptocurrency is not | right, but burning electricity on running servers for | Facebook or user tracking is all right? If that's the case, | who's the arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use case? | | Yep, I hate to say it, but even FB is more useful compared to | BTC. No one uses BTC for actual payment but to hold a value. | People holding BTC could just switch to MtG cards and saved | tons of energy without losing any benefits that they are | currently using. | austincheney wrote: | > who's the arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use | case? | | Congress, courts, Department of Energy. | grogenaut wrote: | We have such a system for appliances already, energy star. | And we do restrict the manuf and sale of appliances that | can't meet those goals. Same for cars. | schmorptron wrote: | The arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use case is the | fact that proof of work systems are literally _designed_ to | waste resources / power. | baby wrote: | Yes. The latter has value whereas the former is just dumb as | green cryptocurrencies exist. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Facebook actively makes the world a worse place in every | way -- be it be providing a captive audience for | authoritarian governments to push their propaganda, for | surveillance states to collect and build models to control | humanity, or trying to control the flow of money and | implement economic censorship on Earth via Diem. | oefrha wrote: | Last time I checked, Facebook isn't designed to adjust its | computational difficulty in order to suck up as much energy | thrown at it as possible to do the same (pitiful) amount of | work. | gideon13 wrote: | I think the correct comparison is against the Bloomberg | Terminal, through which the vast majority of capital flows | responsible for environmental damage, occur. Not only does | the terminal itself use a vast amount of power with its | humongous do-it-all servers and 8-screen users, but the | facilitated capital flows, commodity trading, speculation, | are probably responsible for 2-3 orders of magnitude more | environmental damage than proof of work. | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | Yes, what about _that_ other thing? Look over there! Is there | literally any response that isn 't this mere Whataboutism? | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism | jerry1979 wrote: | Not everything is "Whataboutism". The parent poster wants | to know how we should treat various uses of energy in the | context of calls for the outright banning of specific uses. | How can you expect them to talk about that topic without | talking about the various uses of energy that currently | exist? | agloeregrets wrote: | > If that's the case, who's the arbiter of what's "too much" | power for a use case? | | "If there is a clear and obvious better with minimal impact." | It's just that simple. | | We make choices like this all the time. Here in the US we set | CARB rules to slow emissions but we don't just ban old cars | even though that would be better for the environment. Grey is | okay in laws if the black and white bit behind it is clear! | (Reduce emissions if possible with least possible impact on | people.) Otherwise you will never be able to improve anything | until the harmful methods have grown too much. | scotty79 wrote: | Crypto is currently the only viable reason to overbuild | renewables so we can expand their capacity faster than the | battery technology allows us. | | Just tax the carbon sources and ban building new coal power | plants or reactivating defunct ones. | | Instead of downvoting please give me one other example why | would rational market entity build more renewables than to | satisfy demand when production peeks. Because to go full | renewables without batteries (and we barely have any when | compared to our renewables) we need to always meet the demand | even when renewable energy production is the lowest. And what | should rational market entity do with the power at all other | times where production is far higher than demand? | | Because "mine cryptocurrencies with it" seems like the only | reasonalble answer in the world where cryptocurrencies exist | and people with too much money buy them enthusiastically. | iabacu wrote: | It's amazing to me that the real answer on how to make | renewable energy economical (while avoiding the ecological | toxicity of building utility-scale batteries) are getting | downvoted. | hannob wrote: | The arbiter is "if you build something that is build to be as | inefficient as possible by design that's forbidden". I can't | think of anything other than PoW that matches this. | pjc50 wrote: | Burning gasoline to drive somewhere is fine, but (at least in | my city) sitting parked with your engine running incurs a | fine. | | Fundamentally it's become too big a waste to ignore, like so | many other things. We banned incandescent bulbs, we can ban | proof-of-waste, which is basically an incandescent bulb that | never illuminates anything. | Scramblejams wrote: | This isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I keep | waiting for Google's Chrome team to add an energy rating icon | to the browser that gives you a rough feel for how energy | intensive a given page is. | | At some point the shaming would begin, web devs would | respond, and then I'd generally get what I'm really after -- | much faster page load times! | [deleted] | Aunche wrote: | The difference is that Facebook is actually using electricity | to provide services that somebody wants. It's just that you | happen to disagree with the value of this service. Meanwhile, | Bitcoin uses a country's worth of electricity just to provide | a tiny amount of accounting. | 8note wrote: | Burning energy to prove that you burned energy is not right. | You can run cryptocurrency without requiring proof that | burned electricity. | | You don't need to worry about how much electricity was | burned, only that it wasn't done in exchange for a plaque | saying "I filled a swimming pool with gasoline, then lit it | on fire" | quonn wrote: | The government can simply pass a law. There are far bigger | injustices. Why do I pay taxes and Facebook doesn't? | bwb wrote: | FB pays insane amounts of taxes. Employment taxes, property | taxes, etc. Not to mention taxes on any profits. | quonn wrote: | As a percentage of their profit? Let me check. Around | here small businesses pay around 30%, individuals can pay | up to 45%. I doubt Facebook pays that. | | The tax avoidance schemes in Europe are well documented | for all tech companies. | | And what do you mean by employment taxes? Just the | employers part of the income tax? | bwb wrote: | Why would a company pay the same tax rate as a person? A | company pays a tax rate of x% because that income is also | taxed when they distribute it to individuals. Thus we've | built a system that incentivizes them to invest it back | in the company (doesn't always work - but that was the | intent). | | So 21% + 15% to 20% capex on individuals = a tax rate | around the same. | | Now, if you really want to look at the big picture, look | at a company's tax rate of 21% on profits, but they also | pay taxes on employees of ~21% of salary in the USA not | to mention health care (which in europe would be included | as taxes so maybe in Europe 46% to 50%). So if payroll is | 40% of your costs that is another 8.4% of taxes added in | there. And, you can probably add health care as a tax as | well. | | Legal tax avoidance is legal. I hate when people bitch | about companies doing legal maneuvers. It is very easy to | stop that, apply a tax on gross receipts for all income | created in the country. | | Washington State does that for example if you have a | company operating in their state. | memming wrote: | We gotta optimize the bottleneck (and future bottlenecks). | helmholtz wrote: | Why do HN comment threads always end up as Pedantry Pageants | where all ye who dare comment must address all the fucking | edge cases or be called out by the immediate first child | comment about failing to do so. It's SO trite, predictable, | wearisome and _boring_. It always follows the same pattern | too. "Where do you draw the line?" "Who decides what's the | truth?" Always the same fucking slippery slope fallacy. Every | fucking time "Regulations" of any kind come up. I think the | HN audience wears Being Anal as a kind of badge of honour. | | To paraphrase Alan Watts slightly, do you know of a law that | set everything to right? Let's just all sit around twiddling | our thumbs eh? Since you obviously didn't really offer a | _counter_ solution. | jraph wrote: | I don't know if that was their intent, but I would actually | like a good answer to your parent's question to have a | strong argument for backing OP's proposition, which I'd | like to happen. | AlchemistCamp wrote: | A more apt comparison might be burning fuel to mine copper, | nickel and zinc out of the ground for coinage. | kd0amg wrote: | That comparison would fit even better if we acquired | Cu/Ni/Zn at the same rate no matter how much energy we | spent on mining it. | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | Because it's missing the forest for the trees. Look at | total energy usage, across all industries. This is more an | indictment of cryptocurrency than it is about actually | caring about the environment. Compare it to say, | eliminating all gas vehicles for electric cars. Where is | the HN thread advocating for that, if the end result would | be massively fewer carbon emissions versus this proposal? | My criticism is this proposal is like banning plastic | straws. It's patting ourselves on the back, with no real | solution. | adamrezich wrote: | > It's patting ourselves on the back, with no real | solution. | | modern politics in a nutshell | kaesar14 wrote: | Are you joking? There are plenty of conversations on | Hackernews about electric vehicles, it just so happens | that replacing every single car in the world with a | totally different energy system is a way harder problem | than banning useless cryptocurrencies that are burning | energy to fuel equity bubbles. | shawnz wrote: | Only if you just consider how hard it is to ban, not how | hard it is to replace while achieving the same utility. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | So instead of dolvibg the hard problem well focus on | something easy and useless. SV moto in a nutshell | kaesar14 wrote: | You may have heard of this company Tesla based in Silicon | Valley, one of the largest companies by market cap in the | world, just led an electric car revolution that's | inspired automakers worldwide to shift off IC engines | joshuamorton wrote: | No, it's addressing the low hanging fruit first. An | efficient approach to solving a problem. | tigerBL00D wrote: | Why? Because that's what I bet most people come to HN for. | I'd rather find out that my idea is impractical or plain | stupid on a HN thread than in some other and expensive way. | setum wrote: | It violates principle of equality to target only one | wnevets wrote: | > Every fucking time "Regulations" of any kind come up. | | unless of course those regulations are about regulating | "big tech" for "censorship". | panarky wrote: | _" Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation | of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to | criticize. Assume good faith."_ | | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | Perhaps it's not idle pedantry to observe that many of | those who are angry about crypto energy usage couldn't care | less about the energy wasted and pollution generated by | other endeavors. | | It's like an uncle of mine who is outraged that mosques get | tax exemptions, but he doesn't care that churches get tax | exemptions. | | Clearly tax policy isn't a genuine concern for him. He's | angry about something else that he won't say out loud. | SideburnsOfDoom wrote: | > Perhaps it's not idle pedantry to observe that many of | those who are angry about crypto energy usage couldn't | care less about the energy wasted and pollution generated | by other endeavors. | | I don't think that's correct. I think that it's possible | to care about both, _but_ to be dismissive of | misdirecting subject changes, i.e. "whataboutism". | WorldMaker wrote: | I wish there was a better name for an "order of magnitude | fallacy" (but given Roman numerals I can understand why | they probably didn't have a fun Latin name for an order | of magnitude problem), because we seem to be seeing them | all the time right now. | | Industrial production of greenhouse gases is nearly an | order of magnitude larger than consumer production, but | often inordinately the "guilt" burden is pushed to the | consumers: Do you have an EV? Have you changed all your | light bulbs to more efficient LEDs? Are you Vegan enough? | | Here too: Bitcoin alone has risen to an order (or three) | of magnitude more energy consumption than Facebook could | ever use/do ever use to track people. (Cumulative, the | rest of cryptocurrencies only further dwarf Facebook's | comparative energy costs.) We can be angry about two | things, we can be angry at both, _but_ why can 't we | discuss the bigger problem first without getting into the | weeds of all the smaller problems? | | (And of course, the two order of magnitude problems above | are inextricably linked: Bitcoin is on track to make many | industrial users of electricity look like chumps and | dwarf them by an order of magnitude. Nearly all of the | consumer-side gains from veganism, LED lightbulbs, EVs | has been offset again, if not entirely dwarfed, by | cryptocurrency mining.) | | People are bad at reasoning things at large enough | scales, have a hard time gut understanding order of | magnitude problems, so the fallacies keep creeping up, | and keep getting weaponized by bad agents (the consumer | "green guilt", the consumer "recycling guilt", so many | other "demand-side fallacies" that if consumers just | bought "smarter", problems would just go away, when | really it's the suppliers that are in control). | cwkoss wrote: | What is a fair method for determining the amount of | acceptable energy for a cryptocurrency or a social | network to use? | | It seems like you implicitly draw the 'fair' line between | FB and BTC. | | BTC's market cap is roughly equal to Facebooks. If a POW | coin used facebook levels of energy at the same value, | would you find that acceptable? | WorldMaker wrote: | _I 'm_ not setting any line here. I'm saying that we | _could_ worry about the big problem first without | immediately deciding where any "line" needs to be drawn. | I'm saying it doesn't matter which side of the "line" | Facebook falls on because we could start with the biggest | problems first, then circle back to Facebook when it's | top of the list (not a whopping log_10 of at least 2 (!) | difference from the current worst offenders, such as | BTC). | beaner wrote: | > why can't we discuss the bigger problem first without | getting into the weeds of all the smaller problems? | | People seem to be intentionally conflating some things. A | carbon tax is nice precisely because it avoids getting | into weeds and is a general approach that applies equally | to everything. Some people are proposing this and others | are saying "don't get caught up in the weeds." What? | Makes no sense. It just reinforces the poster's point: | that some people's real motivation doesn't seem to be | environmental, there's a strange focus on crypto | specifically that makes it seem like they want it to be | reigned in for other reasons. | WorldMaker wrote: | General solutions are great, but when there's a | noticeable log_10 distinction between two examples given, | why _can 't_ we start at dealing with specific solutions | to the biggest problem first and worry about the general | approach later? It's a 99%/1% problem: we'd potentially | get a huge savings if we dealt with the 99% of cases | first and worried about the 1% later. | | The raw statistics already tell a story that the | difference between "BTC" and "Facebook" is _greatly | exponential_. Wanting to focus first on the (much) bigger | exponent isn 't necessarily a sign that people's real | motivation is "conspiratorial" against crypto. | beaner wrote: | Because an outright ban is misguided anyway. PoW systems | incentivize renewable R&D and investment. If you just | straight-up make it illegal, you kill a major driving | force of change for the better. If you restrict carbon | output instead, you just further challenge the industry | to find a way to work inside those bounds, allowing | creativity and positive externalities to continue to | develop. | WorldMaker wrote: | There was an article just the other day of a coal plant | that was entirely restarted for PoW coin mining. PoW | systems are _not_ proven to incentivize renewable energy | R &D and investment. There's no proven link there. | There's no proof that a PoW coin ban would "kill a major | driving force of change for the better". Sure, a | restriction on carbon output _would_ be such a driving | force, but there is no such restriction today and it is | wishful thinking to believe that PoW miners are following | anything like one in a market where such externalities | continue to be unregulated. | | It is orthogonal to the issue at hand that PoW is using | _far too much energy per transaction /per capita/per | GDP/per most metrics you want to point to_. Not using the | energy in the first place is always going to be greener, | no matter how much PoW systems invest in renewables and | their R&D! I can't see that as "misguided". An outright | ban would get immediate results versus a carbon output | tax would incentivize eventual results, _maybe_. That 's | not misguided, that's just a different perspective, and a | different preference on an ideal time window to address | the situation versus wishful thinking and "golly gee, | sure hope the market eventually figures it out someday". | josh2600 wrote: | https://orionmagazine.org/article/forget-shorter-showers/ | << This is the seminal essay on this subject, IMHO. | 8note wrote: | The argument stands for itself. If your uncle gave a good | argument against tax exemptions, it's a good argument for | tax exemptions. Just pretend somebody else gave it that | doesn't have the same alterior motive. | | Attacking the motive or whatever is not said out loud is | responding to a weaker interpretation | Nursie wrote: | > Perhaps it's not idle pedantry to observe that many of | those who are angry about crypto energy usage couldn't | care less about the energy wasted and pollution generated | by other endeavors. | | Have you observed this, or are you simply speculating? | bigbob2 wrote: | Was thinking the same thing... There's no evidence I can | see to suggest the parent is not also against other forms | of excessive energy consumption. | Karunamon wrote: | There's a hidden subjective value judgment built into the | word "excessive" that's doing a lot of the heavy lifting | here. These "regulation" comments tend to have a high | likelihood of boiling down "I want the government to stop | things I don't like", where environmental concerns | (crypto) or data collection (adtech) is a mere pretense | grounded in incomplete information at best, emotion at | worst. | | Personally speaking I find it just as irritating of a | pattern here that knee-jerk calls for "regulation" (i.e. | bring in the coercive power of the state) or outright | banning are so often floated as a/the solution to every | problem. When legal coercion is suggested, it is entirely | proper to bring up the existence of the dragons that lay | down that road. | Nursie wrote: | I want the government to look seriously at things that | are using the energy footprint of a mid-sized country | simply to spin up a new financial instrument. | Particularly when there appear to be equivalent things | that don't. | | If cryptocurrencies didn't have the energy footprint, I | would find them pretty uninteresting and/or ridiculous | for various reasons, but ultimately it wouldn't bother me | that people do what they do with them. When they start | adding seriously to the global energy load in a time of | climate crisis that makes them pretty offensive. | cmrdporcupine wrote: | So you answered his complaint about the use of "slippery | slope fallacy" by deploying the "whatabout" fallacy and | created a strawman. | | Nicely done, nicely done. | helmholtz wrote: | Fair enough. I love this orange website, but I also | despise it. Flying off the handle is rarely a sensible | solution. | | To your point, though, I'm willing to wager that most of | the people whose biggest problem with crypto is energy | consumption would happily also support other harsh | measures against all manner of pollution generating | entities. I know I would. | admax88q wrote: | A pollution tax is really the only viable solution | though. Playing whack a mole against individual entities | and activities will never solve the problem, and creates | a lot of legislation. | | So long as pollution and carbon are free or cheap, people | will find wasteful ways to generate it. | | Incentives work, and taxing carbon and pollution will | incentive green alternatives. | heisenzombie wrote: | In the specific case of proof-of-work cryptocurrency, I | don't think a carbon tax is directly useful: If it's | unilateral then mining trivially shifts across borders; | if it's global then it's an inflationary pressure on the | coin price which offsets the reduction in mining you | might otherwise expect. | lancemurdock wrote: | a pollution tax will not work. That just becomes the | price of doing business and that cost is factored into | other areas of the business model. Even worse, it just | gives more capital to inefficient governments | chalst wrote: | I have a few disagreements with the MMT crowd, but on | this one point they are transparently correct: the exact | level of taxation has little relationship to government | ability to spend. Talk of "giving more capital" to | governments shows a deep misunderstanding about the | nature of fiscal constraints. | toomanybeersies wrote: | > other areas of the business model | | And what are those? District heating? | admax88q wrote: | It becomes the cost of doing dirty business. | | Solar is taking off not because we banned coal, but | because it's cheaper than coal. If coal and natural gas | were taxed according to their carbon output, solar would | be even more ahead, nuclear may become more attractive as | well. | | Aluminum is heavily recycled not because it's green, but | because it's significantly cheaper than mining new. | | Incentives work. The free market responds to incentives, | and works around regulations. | hllooo wrote: | > That just becomes the price of doing business and that | cost is factored into other areas of the business model. | | Yah that's the point and business with less environmental | impact will be more competitive. Industries/products with | more of an impact will be more expensive, reflecting | their true cost. | | > Even worse, it just gives more capital to inefficient | governments | | Most pollution/carbon taxes are proposed to be revenue | neutral, i.e. all the proceeds are returned to the tax | base. This is also important because like other (non- | luxury) consumption taxes, a carbon tax is regressive. | KronisLV wrote: | Are there any estimates of how much power crypto mining | has consumed and how much running all of the | Facebook/Instagram/whatever servers has consumed? | | Best i found for Bitcoin was 40-100 TWh per year: | https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption | | And for Facebook it appeared that they used 5140 GWh in | 2019: https://www.statista.com/statistics/580087/energy- | use-of-fac... | | So essentially: Entity Consumption | (GWh) Facebook 5 140 Bitcoin 40 000 - 100 | 000 | | I wouldn't have expected Facebook to consume | comparatively so little energy, if i'm doing conversions | right. | [deleted] | kodah wrote: | Moral arguments (ones that offer only _should_ and _should | not_ with some supporting evidence but no actual solution) | are going to be dismissed more regularly because while they | may offer perspective, they offer very little value beyond | that. That makes them fairly non-actionable. | | Choose an argument which requires you to offer a viable and | compatible alternative and you'll probably get a lot more | ears. | ChemSpider wrote: | This is not an edge case at all. Who is to decide on what | to spend energy or not? This is curing the symptoms only. | | The (counter) solution is not to discuss for what to burn | coal, but to finally stop burning coal, oil and gas. USA | and EU could do that within a few years. And then stop or | tax imports from countries that still do burn coal. | | But that is inconvenient for many, so they prefer | discussing nerdy Bitcoin PoW instead. | layla5alive wrote: | You do realize that while sunlight and wind are | renewable, lithium-ion batteries are not, right? Nor are | solar panels. Cadmium and lithium are highly toxic | materials we must mine, just like coal. They have the | benefit of not directly adding CO2 to the atmosphere as | you use them -- but they come with their own set of | issues. There is no free lunch. POW is Proof of Waste, | and we shouldn't be blithely wasting any of these non- | renewables. | merpnderp wrote: | If you think the US and EU could completely stop burning | coal, oil, and gas in a few years (less than 10?), you | must know something no one else knows, or this plan | involves a lot of dead people. But I'd love to hear more | about it. | toomanybeersies wrote: | > so they prefer discussing nerdy Bitcoin PoW instead | | Why not both? | AlexCoventry wrote: | > stop burning coal, oil and gas. USA and EU could do | that within a few years. | | Is there a concrete plan for how this would work | documented somewhere? The ways I can think of doing this | in the USA are all politically nonviable. | throwaway744678 wrote: | Electricity produced in France by coal + gas + oil is | around 8% (vs. 70% nuclear, 10% hydro, the rest is wind + | solar + bio-energy). It took more than "a few years" to | build, though. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | "politically nonviable" | | Which makes it a self-inflicted injury. Like corruotion | in Russia - it can't be adressed by anyone else. | [deleted] | emptyfile wrote: | Agree. Wasting energy on bitcoin isn't the problem, | energy production causing earth to heat up is the | problem. | | I can think of many things equally or similarly energy | wasteful as Bitcoin. | quickthrowman wrote: | What things are similarly energy wasteful as Bitcoin? | [deleted] | SerLava wrote: | What is something more wasteful than Bitcoin? | | It's a nondescript pollution factory from the Captain | Planet cartoons. | | Every other wasteful activity has just been | overconsumptive, decadent, or externalized, not an actual | burning of resources for no reason. | damon_c wrote: | Yes. The weird thing about bitcoin is that at least | mining it doesn't create additional waste products. | | If you spent the same energy used to mine bitcoin on | producing Legos or In-N-Out burgers, then you'd have much | bigger problems. | | I | zikduruqe wrote: | Like lawns. We seriously use way too much water, | chemicals, energy and time on a plant crop that is | basically only for our visual enjoyment. We often think | of the big fixes, which are needed, where there are some | low hanging fruit we could pick first that would make an | impact. | | https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2010/06/04/the-problem- | of-... | | https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in- | practic... | helmholtz wrote: | I mean, thank you for offering the alternative solution! | I couldn't agree more that not burning coal is the only | ultimate solution. A severe, possibly overly severe, | Carbon tax is maybe the way. But as the great Stephen | Schneider once quoted some other great, "Don't let the | perfect get in the way of the good". And he was talking | about cap and trade vs carbon tax! | insert_coin wrote: | The real reason is twofold, first and more importantly, | because you don't know the unintended consequences of | proposing something like that. Who knows what else would | get caught between the regulatory framework needed to | prevent someone from doing math, because let's face it, | that is impossible so unintended consequences will be the | only consequences. | | And secondly and most importantly, the government should | not decide what products are allowed to be traded: | Governments should lift all bans on products currently | banned, all drugs, all books, all music, all banned | clothing, etc. | 8note wrote: | I don't think it's useful to spin up nuclear reactors to | run Bitcoin PoW either. | | All energy production will have an environmental cost, | not just carbon dioxide emitting ones. | shawnz wrote: | It's not a counter-solution, it is a suggestion that the | problem isn't really a problem. PoW power usage is high in | an absolute sense but lower than many other things which | people would consider an obvious waste. So why does PoW | power usage have so much contention compared to those other | things? I would say because there's too much baggage/hype | associated with cryptocurrencies, not because there's a | genuine belief that increasing the energy usage of our | species is a universally bad thing. | | As for the carbon side of the issue, that isn't something | which is specific to cryptocurrencies or any other kind of | energy usage. I support carbon taxes and import taxes on | CO2-producing goods/services, including cryptocurrency | services, and I am certain that many cryptocurrency | believers feel the same way. | mc32 wrote: | So if ready alternatives didn't exist, sure PoW is | wasteful but has no alternative... but we have an | alternative. If there were alternatives to running a | social media platform that didn't spend energy we should | also back that option. | shawnz wrote: | Assuming you are talking about PoS systems, I think they | are very promising but it's still not obvious that they | can achieve the same risk profile as PoW systems. I think | they are worthy of further research and I am excited to | see how Eth 2.0 works in practice, but I don't think we | understand the economic nature of cryptocurrencies well | enough to definitively say that it can completely replace | Bitcoin. | micropresident wrote: | There is a counter solution to advocating for regulation. | It's to create an economic system where people are | naturally incentivized to do what's best. Vote with your | wallet. You don't want energy that produced Co2? Don't buy | it and advocate for others not to buy it. | | Instead what people are doing is advocating for the | government to come and point guns at people who don't do | what _they_ want -- even if they happen to be wrong. And | when they are wrong, there are disastrous consequences as | is currently extremely apparent in California. There are | all kinds of perverse incentives which have resulted in the | severe homelessness and extreme government waste. | | The people advocating for this neither listen to the wisdom | of Murphy's law, nor do they understand that when | regulation impacts the market that regulation becomes what | is bought and sold. Have you never heard of regulatory | capture? That has worse human-cost impacts than leaving | people to their own devices. | | Vote with your wallet. Don't like the environmental cost of | beef? Don't buy it. This works -- you can see it playing | out. | | https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/BA65/production | /... | bjt wrote: | "Vote with your wallet" depends on several micro-economic | assumption holding true, that don't hold true here. | | One of those is the assumption of perfect competition. | Electricity is far, far from being a market with perfect | competition. How many electricity providers are you able | to choose from at your house? I'm going to guess 1. | | Another assumption that doesn't hold here is the absence | of externalities. The full cost of damage to the | environment is not included in the price you pay for | electricity, so people are going to over-consume it. | | You rail against laws and regulations but even in the | second sentence of your post you assume their necessity | with the phrase "create an economic system..." Laws and | regulations are how you create such systems. | | Regulatory capture is a real thing, but it's not a good | argument against all regulation. Maybe it's an argument | for relatively less regulation than we'd have otherwise. | It's also an argument for doing regulation better. | Nursie wrote: | This is not a solution in a world in which we have | catastrophic global climate instability on the horizon. | | Sorry, sometimes there are great reasons for regulation. | micropresident wrote: | Those regulations are going to create as much cost on | humans as leaving it to people like yourself who care. | | Fixing the problem is up to _you._ | | ~"The reason things things never change is that those who | stand to lose by change are the ones who hold all the | power" -- Machiavelli | Nursie wrote: | > Those regulations are going to create as much cost on | humans as leaving it to people like yourself who care. | | Humans optimise for short term gain, generally perceived | gain over others, and rationalise this over large | nebulous things like climate change, environmental health | etc. They don't count externalities without being made | to. And that's individuals. Companies are downright | sociopathic and will happily defecate in their own back | yard if they can make a dime out of it. | | As a result we can already see what happens when people | are left to choose themselves or the environment, they | choose their own short term relative gain over the long | term prospects of the whole species (before we even look | at other species). | | > Fixing the problem is up to you. | | Yes, in a democracy it is, which is why I vote for | political parties which will bring in regulations. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | "Fixing the problem is up to you." | | Huh? Great newa! I can pollute and create oilspills and | its all someone else's problem! | ForHackernews wrote: | This idea doesn't apply at all for stupid speculative | bubbles like proof-of-work crypocurrency. | | As another good counterexample to your "market solutions | for everything": I don't want rhinos driven to | extinction, so I vote with my wallet by never buying | powdered rhino horn or other poached products, and | donating to environmental charities to protect them. | However, it's very likely that rhinos will be extinct in | the wild within our lifetime. Does this mean "the market" | has decided to exterminate wild rhinos? Should we | eliminate poaching regulations and remove red-tape to | stop distorting the free-market price of rhino horn? | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Rhinos are heritage of mankind abd are woth countless | trilions to future generations. Just like forests and | climate. | | Current 'free market' is just fancy name for barbaric | ransaking | micropresident wrote: | Create your own nature reserve for rhinos if you think | it's so important. There are huge swaths of the US | dedicated to nature reserves. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Infact create your own planet with its own climate if you | think it's so importsnt | acituan wrote: | > must address all the fucking edge cases or be called out | by the immediate first child comment about failing to do | so. | | Because it is an incredibly common fallacy to ignore | boundary conditions and unintentional consequences when | proposing a pie-in-the-sky regulation that is supposed to | _just fix things_. | | Any regulatory mechanism is essentially a machine that will | need to work with _every input_ and minimize some class of | error, be it precision or coverage or some other system | level metric. Turns out the most interesting part of such a | system is indeed around the edge cases, and the difficulty | of handling such cases is essentially the bulk of the | difficulty of building such a system to begin with. | | It is like saying "why don't we build a system that | punishes criminals", which sounds very agreeable and | popular at that level of construal, but is incredibly | complex and sophisticated at the actual implementation | level; e.g. to have a process to minimize false positive | convictions rather than maximize conviction rates. | | > It's SO trite, predictable, wearisome and boring | | Not to sound harsh but HN does not owe anyone their | favorite type of entertainment and honestly criticisms on | those metrics are more trite, predictable, wearisome and | boring themselves than anything else. Many find | intellectual stimulation and systemic thinking entertaining | and thus those comments enjoyable. | beaner wrote: | The crowd of HN tends to be more philosophic. Without a | moral / ethical / long-term practical view, we're just | ships with torn sails floating in the waves, wandering | about, making short-term decisions. Decisions often have | 2nd, 3rd, 4th-order consequences that can be unpredictable | and often counter to the goal we think we're working | towards in the short term. It pays to think them through | from a high level and apply long-term thinking principles. | helmholtz wrote: | Lol, please. The crowd on HN is just as impotent as the | crowd on Twitter, Reddit or Facebook. But with more | "first principles" thrown in. | beaner wrote: | If that's how you feel, maybe that's the vibe you're | bringing with you. | virmundi wrote: | We're talking about HN. Most people here are moral | relativists that think their feelings based worldview is | absolute. They already are ships without a sail. How many | have actual researched and applied a philosophy? I bet | most here can't even find utility in Kant. | fwsgonzo wrote: | I agree. Having used Reddit for too long, and Facebook | too before I deleted it completely, my experience has | been that HN is much better at talking about things, and | more careful about wording. Despite the predictable | slippery slope comments, there is always some good | commentary in most threads. I can't think of anywhere | else to go to get discussion on a multitude of complex | topics like this. | | That doesn't mean that threads on HN can't take a | nosedive and become flame wars. But that's what good | moderation is here for, and I believe HN has that. | Teelo wrote: | Just can't escape this mentality. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | While I agree with the genral thrust of your tirade, this | is not slippery slope, this is hypocracy of the highest | degree. | | OP proposal to ban cryptocurrencies for 'damaging | environment' while we have companies who's entire business | model is giving their customers cancer and preying on | addicts. | acdha wrote: | 1. We can work on more than one thing at a time and I'd | be quite surprised if the original poster didn't want to | do something about those companies, too. | | 2. For all their many flaws, those industries also | provide something of value. If they shut down tomorrow, | people would miss having cars, pesticides, fuels, | medications, etc. but if every cryptocurrency suddenly | halted tomorrow nobody outside of a few speculators would | find their daily life any different. That doesn't mean | that those externalities aren't real and don't require | action but they're widespread because there is some kind | of real value to society and you'd need a transition plan | to avoid disrupting a lot of processes. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | If a heroin dealer is imprisoned, his customers could | have severe withdrawal. Some might even die from it. | dudeman13 wrote: | I'm gonna bet OP would be happy to ban hammer the hell | out of the companies who's entire business model is | giving their customers cancer and preying on addicts too | davidcbc wrote: | This is classic whataboutism. We can't do anything to | improve the world because there are other bad things | happening in the world too. | nickpp wrote: | Because banning outright is stupid, and banning a | technology is even stupider. Technologies have both | benefits and drawbacks. TAX (not ban) the drawbacks. | | In this case, tax carbon. Then people will decide what they | want to spend their (expensive) energy on. | patrickthebold wrote: | I'm actually hopeful that crypto will bring about a | carbon tax. I figure the people getting rich in crypto | are a different set of people than those getting rich in | traditional CO2 emitting industries. So there's a | slightly better chance that politicians will enact the | necessary legislation. | belltaco wrote: | Carbon tax will increase the prices of essentials for the | poor and middle class. | hllooo wrote: | Redistribute the proceeds as a tax credit then | fsflover wrote: | Basic income? | soco wrote: | Unless they do that outside your jurisdiction and/or get | tax cuts from the powers to be. | syndacks wrote: | Because HN is full of fucking leetcoders or other specially | minded folk that sees things as black or white. If any part | of a statement is falsifiable that statement is False (or | so it goes) so that's why we get this kind of Malcolm | Gladwell-level brain candy masquerading as rigor. | XIVMagnus wrote: | I literally LOL'd. Thank you and never stop being this way | thepasswordis wrote: | Because this is a website full of engineers who write | computer software for a living? And finding and solving for | those edge cases is literally a core function of what most | of us spend the majority of both our work and leisure time | doing? | sgtnoodle wrote: | I'm a software engineer, and I'm probably at least in the | 90th percentile for ability to manage (or design not to | have) edge cases. I try not to be that pedantic when | criticizing coworker's designs, other than perhaps | pointing out that lots of edge cases in a design is a | common symptom of over-complexity. | | On this particular topic, I particularly hate the amount | of fossil fuels getting burned on cryptocurrency. I'm | less concerned about the amount of energy getting | "wasted" on data centers in general. At least in most | cases, there's alignment of interests when it comes to | efficiency optimization. Facebook has an incentive to | make their servers more power efficient over time, and | scale their capacity to the size of their customer base. | With proof-of-work, there's also incentive to increase | power efficiency, but also incentive to scale up to | capacity limits. | | I think it is possible that proof-of-work cryptocurrency | algorithms could be tuned to the point of striking a | sustainable balance long term, but that would require the | world economy to converge on one or two of them. The | issue with that I think is the speculative nature of the | currency's distribution of ownership. With large portions | of the currency being held by a small number of anonymous | people, and no clear path for the majority of normal folk | to exchange their wealth, it's just not going to happen | without some sort of societal collapse. I also struggle | to have faith in a system meant to disrupt the global | economy when its existence depends on global scale | internet infrastructure. | EricMausler wrote: | To me the big gripe is not the concern for edge cases but | the immediate dismissal of a very productive first step | in addressing an issue by resolving the entire | conversation before it even happens. | | It is very possible to bring up edge cases in a | productive manner. Expand the conversation to include | them. there's no need to assume the first solution idea | posted is meant to be the final form | emteycz wrote: | Making this change would introduce an enormously | impactful precedent. Politicians might take it and run | with it to places we don't even want to imagine. I'd | agree with you in a world without the current style of | politics and decision making, but that's not where we | live - and sadly alternative to that is unknown to me | too. | beaner wrote: | But is it even a productive first step? There are | arguments to be made that proof-of-work mining | incentivizes renewable R&D. | | By banning that because it uses "too much" energy now - | what are we potentially losing? What developments in | renewables, energy storage, or grid development simply | won't be there, which we won't know we don't have, | because we banned the largest for-profit, skin-in-the- | game competitive contest for low-cost energy that the | world had ever seen 25 years prior? | | Banning it outright is short-sighted. Thinking about it | from a higher level is a way of addressing the real issue | of carbon emissions while allowing a phenomenon that has | the potential to _massively help, not hurt_ , to thrive. | SerLava wrote: | Making renewables isn't actually useful if they're used | for something we don't even need to do. We could switch | to a low-energy crypto currency and do all the things we | were going to do with Bitcoin. | belltaco wrote: | Lighting all the oil and gas in the world on fire will | also incentivize renewables. But that's not a good | practice for a lot of reasons including increasing the | pollution and CO2 levels. | Qworg wrote: | The desire for energy is near limitless - PoW simply | bends the curve upward. As the price of BTC increases, | the drive for less costly energy slackens off. | | The issue is clearly a tragedy of the commons - the cost | (higher air pollution/higher energy costs) is socialized, | while the profits are centralized. So the maximization | function is cheap >>> anything else. Why wouldn't we | expect more and larger coal plants versus research into | fusion reactors? | beaner wrote: | That's only true so long as the price continually rises. | As soon as the price settles, everyone is operating on | the margin and can only become more profitable by | reducing costs. | | Unsubsidized renewables are already the cheapest new | source of energy generation. [0] Even if miners wouldn't | be doing direct renewable research themselves, their | capital investments into renewables in the name of | competition and cost-savings would incentivize more | efficient technologies. | | In this case the immediate marginal profits from mining | are centralized, and the larger benefits of more advanced | renewable energy are socialized. | | Plus - do you believe that the price of Bitcoin will rise | forever? If it did, wouldn't that mean to you that it | might be doing something important, to constantly have | growth and demand for 100 years? Cuz if I thought so then | I'd want to preserve it, not throw it away. Sounds | important. | | [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15 | /renewa... | WorldMaker wrote: | Bitcoin isn't the only option. We've already seen that | when the price of Bitcoin dips miners flip over to | whatever cryptocoin seems next to bubble, seems next most | interesting. Certainly what is called Bitcoin itself | (today) has "hard" "deflationary" "caps", but as soon as | miners get bored with that, there's always more room for | more forks and other coins. | | Even if Bitcoin isn't intended to be "growing forever", | the ecosystem can and will. | craftinator wrote: | > The desire for energy is near limitless - PoW simply | bends the curve upward. As the price of BTC increases, | the drive for less costly energy slackens off. | | Shameless hijacking here: at what point will the heat | consumption/release rate be so great that the Earth | becomes unable to support life? I've seen some back of | the napkin calculations that estimate a couple hundred | years, at our current acceleration. | Qworg wrote: | IIRC (it has been a few years), we only need a few | degrees to reach a tipping point. The decay of methane | hydrates could push out 1000 GT CO2 equivalent suddenly, | accelerating warming by roughly ~40-50 years. | stale2002 wrote: | Then offer a counter solution, that you think is better | and defend it. | | Don't just sit around making the same useless attacks | against other people's arguments. | | Instead, offer a different proposal and explain why it is | better. | [deleted] | fsflover wrote: | CO2 tax. | gvhst wrote: | In my mind its not about figuring out the edge cases, its | more about building a framework in which tradeoffs can be | analyzed, debated, and mindfully considered before drafting | legislation. In order to do this there might need to be a | few conversations that some may consider pedantic. | | I will say that given the text based medium of HN, it can | be hard to gauge whether one wants to have a mindful | discussion or if one is just trying to mindlessly ding a | poster. | lhorie wrote: | It's not pedantry, it's calling out issues in armchair | proposals. "Why not regulate" and "Why not let the market | sort itself out" are kinda intellectually lazy | propositions: there are good regulations and bad | regulations, and good and bad implementations. | | And banning isn't really a proper solution in the first | place. It's a literal avenue for tax revenue for countries | at this point. The fact that PoS coins like Cardano and L2 | solutions like Polygon are bullish despite the crash in | Bitcoin shows something about investor sentiment | surrounding the whole energy consumption ordeal. Voting | with your wallet is a real possible solution and IMHO, | people are starting to take the hint. | tshaddox wrote: | I don't understand why you don't find these "where do you | draw the line?" inquiries extremely relevant to this | conversation. It seems like everyone here has just assumed | that Bitcoin is useless and therefore the externalities | from its energy usage should be unacceptable. Personally | I'm not a big fan of bitcoin's energy usage either, but it | strikes me as bizarre to recommend banning arbitrary things | that use energy rather than, for example, addressing the | externality problem directly. | helmholtz wrote: | I wouldn't say OP recommended banning anything | 'arbitrary'. It was very relevant to the discussion to | state that the ban should be on proof-of-work currencies. | | Here's my issue. There is such a thing as too-late in | environmental matters. Once it's too late, it's a fire | that sustains itself. Therefore, acting quickly matters. | Addressing the source directly is obviously the superior | solution. But I just don't see it happening at a fast | enough rate. I see nuclear power in the same way. Yes, | it's a little bit of trading one problem for the next, | but it's a very necessary stop gap to buy us time. | kietay wrote: | How is that an edge case? The OP said ban all POW crypto | and the reply questions whether that is really a wise | suggestion. | Graffur wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | | Be kind. Don't be snarky. | | Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not | less, as a topic gets more divisive. | | When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of | calling names. | | Please don't post shallow dismissals | mpfundstein wrote: | the thing is that 'simple' solutions are never that. and if | you find that boring or whatever than maybe its time to | think a bit further before making some arguments. if a case | is so easy to dismiss, it might not be a good case after | all. | dbsmith83 wrote: | There's nothing wrong with pointing out problems with a | solution and not providing a counter-solution. When one | isn't provided, it can simply mean that the offered | solution is actually worse than the status quo. | | In this particular situation, I may not have the solution, | but I know that the offered one is a short-sighted knee- | jerk reaction which has terrible implications for other | things | MR4D wrote: | > edge cases | | That's the first time I've ever seen someone describe | Facebook as an "edge case". | | If $900,000,000,000 of market capitalization counts as an | edge case, I'd think you must be hard to please at | Christmas - those are some really high standards! | OOPMan wrote: | There is a good reason n-gate exists and endlessly mocks | the HN comments | helmholtz wrote: | I love n-gate. My best guess is that it's Maciej from | Idlewords running it :) I've seen him rant about HN on | Twitter as well. | lancemurdock wrote: | just because you lack an understanding to rebuttal | coherently doesn't render the argument useless. | rattlesnakedave wrote: | This comment isn't productive. The original comment | suggests states act to ban wasteful energy use. The comment | you're replying to asks "who decides?" , and gives an | example of energy use they find particularly wasteful. | | You're presupposing this is a problem that needs a | solution. I think myself and the commenter you are replying | to would agree that either: A) it's not or B) it does not | need to be solved by a regulatory body. | | Instead of getting annoyed by people pointing out edge | cases, it would be more productive to explain what criteria | should be used, or admit this is a half baked solution. | declnz wrote: | Yes. In fact perhaps we could automate these, with GPT-3! | Unless, err, that's already happened | Skunkleton wrote: | Facebook used 5 TWhr in 2019 (citation: totally unverified | top summary from google). Bitcoin alone is estimated to have | used 110 TWhr in a year. To put that in perspective, that is | sixfold the power output of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power | Plant. The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Produces power on the | order of magnitude of detonating two small atomic bombs per | day. | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | > If that's the case, who's the arbiter of what's "too much" | power for a use case? | | The difference is that Facebook's energy use potential is | limited and gets better with improved computer tech. | | There is a limit to how much analysis you can do. As you get | more efficient hardware, the energy use would go down. | Facebook also invests a lot of effort in optimizing their | code to run more efficiently. | | With proof of work crypto, the only limit is the price of | crypto. Despite any efficiency gains, you can always expect | the energy use to scale with the price of crypto. For | example, a 10x more efficient miner, won't cause 10x less | energy use, it may actually increase energy use as more | people mine with higher rate electricity. | | There is a chance that we develop a situation that the most | monetarily efficient thing you could do with electricity is | to mine proof of work crypto. If that becomes the case, then | even a carbon tax won't help because proof-of-work crypto can | easily pay the tax compared to all the other uses of | electricity. | JMTQp8lwXL wrote: | It's not about power. Well, not electrical power. It's about | control over our currency. The argument is a trojan horse for | an effective ban on the entire category of currencies not | controlled by central authorities. | | Without Proof of work, cryptocurrency would have never been | established as a novel concept. Proof of work was the only | rationale way to decide who should initially own how many | units of the currency. | SketchySeaBeast wrote: | Does it need to remain? At some point coins were composed | entirely of valuable metals because that's how their value | was determined, but we've moved on from that. Can't we move | on from proof of work as well? | Ajedi32 wrote: | Exactly! Just because _you_ don 't think something has value | doesn't make it so. Value is a matter for the market to | decide. | | Electricity _usage_ has almost no negative externalities. | Electricity _production_ does. Attacking people for using | their own resources on something that _they_ find to be | useful and worthwhile is foolish. Confront the actual | problem, and quit harassing innocent third parties. | okareaman wrote: | I know something about addiction so to me Bitcoin enthusiasts | sound like alcoholics who justify their drinking by saying | "many people drink and doctors say a little drinking is good | for you so lay off me." The fact that I couldn't even | criticize Bitcoin's energy usage on HN util Elon Musk came | out against it reinforces my opinion that it's an addiction. | I imagine Bitcoin is a game like poker with a bluffing and | holding strategy. Bitcoin as it is currently played has many | addicted to it without regard to disastrous environmental | consequences. | adonovan wrote: | Exactly, that's how laws work: they express value judgements. | Installing solar on the roof? Good, the people will help you | pay for it. Earning a fortune? Bad, the people want a piece | of that. | | The laws set up the playing field, and the market responds to | the incentives. There has never been any such thing as a | "free" market, and it's a good thing too. | shiado wrote: | HN embodies this weird upper class environmentalist fascism | where they proudly pick and choose what the plebes should be | allowed to do with their lives based on totally logically | inconsistent environmental reasons. The Musk thing was so | funny for this. "No you plebes should have no recourse or | experimentation against a fiat system it's bad for the | environment, now don't mind me driving my Tesla around to do | things like shop at expensive stores in my gated community or | just kick it on the weekend doing a road trip in my TOTALLY | ENVIRONMENTALLY NECESSARY electric vehicle that uses | electricity from my wall socket not derived from fossil fuels | at all which was not mined from not dubious sources whose | environmental impact is totally not cool". I can't imagine | where this ideology will land but I imagine the scope will | expand greatly outside of PoW cryptocurrencies. Pretty soon | commenters here will be scolding your for turning up your | graphics settings in AAA games but only if you're poor and | your house is in a dump that doesn't have a renewable grid. | helmholtz wrote: | Nah, you're right. Best not to do anything just in case we | incovenience the 'plebes'. Or just in case First They Came | For My PoW's And I Said Nothing. Then They Came For My AAA | Games. Nevermind the burning planet, nothing should ever be | done for the greater good if 100% logical consistency isn't | baked into the thought. | | _Always the same fucking slippery slope!_ | shiado wrote: | You just proved my point. Your comment presents the idea | that Bitcoin is "burning the planet" and needs to be | focused on with ZERO elaboration as to why, then you use | an appeal to emotion invoking the undefinable term | "greater good", then you ignore logical consistency as if | it doesn't matter when making an argument. Absolutely | pathetic. | graeme wrote: | If Statistia is to be believed, Facebook consumes 22x less | energy than Bitcoin. 5 vs 110 Terawatt hours. | | And Bitcoin is hardly used for any transactions, and its | energy usage will increase linearly with BTC price. | | (If someone has a direct source that would be great. Statista | is not good) | | Update: seems the FB figure is correct, for 2019: | https://sustainability.fb.com/report-pages/renewable-energy/ | cm2187 wrote: | Why does the energy moves with the price? Is it because of | increased number of transactions? | wcoenen wrote: | Miners tend to increase their hashrate because that's how | they compete for block rewards. However, the electrical | energy a miner spends on finding blocks should not be | more than the value of the block rewards, otherwise they | would operate at a loss. This provides a ceiling for the | energy expenditure. | | Therefore, if the price of Bitcoin doubles, miners can | afford to burn twice as much electricity. (Roughly. This | is a simplification of course.) | lottin wrote: | Why is proof of waste needed at all? What do you achieve | by proving that you have wasted a certain amount of | electricity? | BenjiWiebe wrote: | If one didn't need to prove they'd done _something_ | difficult, then cryptocurrency didn 't be a workable | idea. | lottin wrote: | Why do they have to prove that they'd done something | difficult? That's what I'm trying to understand. | DennisP wrote: | Because the chain of transactions with the most | accumulated waste is chosen as the "correct" chain. In | order to double-spend, you have to cause a different | chain to be the "correct" chain, so you'll have to waste | even more energy than has been wasted by everybody else, | over whatever span of time you're trying to roll back. | Thus the more waste, the more secure the chain. | | Proof of stake is a newer way of coming to consensus on | one correct chain. It took people a while to figure out | how to do it securely and efficiently. | lottin wrote: | Okay, so the chain of transactions that is regarded as | correct is the one that has been more _expensive_ to | create. Instead of wasting energy, the same result could | be achieved by wasting other stuff, such as bitcoins | themselves, for instance? | DennisP wrote: | Sure. In fact, that's almost how Ethereum's proof-of- | stake works, except it has a protocol that comes to | consensus without wasting anything as long as people | follow the rules, and only destroys stake when someone | provably breaks the rules. | lottin wrote: | If this is true, PoW is simply a stupid version of PoS | and should be abandoned immediately. | brazzy wrote: | No, it's because competition between miners necessarily | drives the hash rate and thus energy usage to scale up | with the value of mining rewards and transaction fees. | cm2187 wrote: | But if there aren't more transaction (as number of | transactions), what happens when the hash rate increases? | They hash incomplete blocks of transactions? Or does the | same block gets confirmed by a greater number of miners? | est31 wrote: | The second answer, although there is only one "winner" of | each block's competition, so it's only one miner/mining | pool which ends up confirming a transaction. It's | controlled by a hardness parameter that's readjusted | automatically in a regular fashion. | mantenpanther wrote: | But maybe Bitcoin is of 1000x(+) more value for humanity in | the long run? | mcdonje wrote: | Whatever humanity is left after the climate crisis | bitcoin is significantly contributing to. | mantenpanther wrote: | Bitcoin uses far less energy than the gold or banking | industry, uses more and more renewable energy every day | and has some significant game theory going on regarding | renewable usage and research. | jandrese wrote: | I'm aghast that Facebook burns that much power to run what | is basically a giant BBS. I guess mining all of our | personal data must take up an outrageous number of computer | cycles. | | However, in Facebook's defense it's per-user per- | transaction energy costs are going to be much lower than | Bitcoin. | vkou wrote: | > I'm aghast that Facebook burns that much power to run | what is basically a giant BBS. I guess mining all of our | personal data must take up an outrageous number of | computer cycles. | | Did Ye Olde BBS support 1:millions broadcasting, and | real-time viewing of high-definition video? Uploading and | viewing thousands of high-quality photos? | | Calling Facebook 'basically a giant BBS' is a lot like | saying 'Oh, I could build Twitter in a weekend'. | sharpneli wrote: | It depends on what is counted there. It might be the | total operations of the company. Offices, AC for offices | and whatnot. | | Especially when talking about CO2 emissions absolutely | everything is included, including plane trips and | whatnot. | jandrese wrote: | Seems a bit disingenuous to compare that to just the kWh | consumed by the ASICs that mine Bitcoin. | donkeyd wrote: | It definitely is. Either that, or it's incredibly short- | sighted. | | That comparison ignores the actual value add of Facebook | and the fact that people are using it. Most BTC trades | happen off blockchain and are powered by the servers of | the market places and nobody really knows how much energy | they use. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | If Facebook has a value add, then so do columbian drug | lords | sharpneli wrote: | That's true. But in a way it just emphasizes how much | energy Bitcoin wastes, so it's fine-ish. | mckeed wrote: | FB is a top video streaming platform. Also they run | WhatsApp, which I think is the largest global telephony | system. | gpm wrote: | I think the proposal here is very simple. Pass a law against | proof of work crypto currencies, don't let perfect be the | enemy of good, and deal with the next big waste of power when | it comes about by passing a law about it. | | Don't address of any the things that you are proposing need | addressing, because they don't need to be addressed in the | same law, or really addressed right now at all. | | The law doesn't need to try and anticipate the actions that | occur in the future, we will still have a legislature in the | future capable of addressing the future when it comes about. | The law needs to address the actions of today. | chii wrote: | > Pass a law against proof of work crypto currencies | | once again, you have merely just assumed the role of | arbitor. What makes this opinion better than the | opposition? | | What needs to be addressed isn't energy usage, but the cost | of energy in the first place. Why isn't the fix be passing | a law to tax carbon properly? Tax the externalities, and | the rest would follow. I don't care if people burn up | energy for crypto, as long as they pay for the cost | properly. | gpm wrote: | > once again, you have merely just assumed the role of | arbitor. What makes this opinion better than the | opposition? | | This is literally the role of legislators. What makes | "my" opinion better, is in the event that this sort of | legislation passed, the majority of the elective | representatives in both houses agree we should ban proof | of work crytpo currencies, nothing less, nothing more. | | > [alternative proposal] | | I mean, I happen to like this proposal too, but you | haven't given any reason not to do both... | Aeolun wrote: | > What makes this opinion better than the opposition? | | Nothing about the opinion is better than any other. But | the only thing we have to achieve is that it is a | majority opinion, which frankly doesn't seem all that | hard to me. | gamegoblin wrote: | I think OP is suggesting that a targeted ban on proof of | work crypto will be more politically feasible -- | particularly in the US -- than a carbon tax. Even the | state of Washington (which is _far_ more left | /democratic/liberal than the US as a whole) failed to | pass two different modest carbon taxes in recent years. | | So while carbon pricing would be a more ideal solution, | OP is suggesting that a targeted ban on POW crypto is a | good-enough bandaid that might actually pass. | selfhoster11 wrote: | > Pass a law against proof of work crypto currencies, don't | let perfect be the enemy of good, and deal with the next | big waste of power when it comes about by passing a law | about it. | | If we won't legislate it now, it's possible we won't get a | chance to do it later thanks to bickering from lobbyists | and fossilised laws and practices. See IPv4. | gpm wrote: | You seem to be proposing that not passing a law against | proof of work cryptocurrencies somehow makes it more | likely that we will quickly pass a law generally "solving | the climate issues" ... I think that is highly unlikely, | and in fact I think the opposite direction is more | likely, that passing a law banning PoW cryptocurrencies | makes us more likely to pass another law which solves | climate issues in other ways. | | Banning PoW cryptocurrencies is not a big enough priority | for anyone that it will be a motivating factor to move | past the other issues surrounding the climate debate, | especially not anyone on the side of "don't do [thing] to | fix the problem". I don't see any other mechanism by | which it makes passing other climate legislation harder. | | Banning PoW cryptocurrencies removes money that is | currently on the side of "don't pass climate legislation | because it will harm my PoW cryptocurrency business" from | the table. That makes passing future legislation easier. | | In general, trying to solve all the worlds problems at | once doesn't work. It's too complex, you paralyze the | decision making body with too many tradeoffs. When | something is obviously bad, banning it immediately not | only has the effect of meaning it's gone immediately (and | doesn't hang around until you solve the whole problem), | but it simplifies the remaining problem for the decision | making body. This makes them more likely to come to a | consensus on exactly what to do in a finite amount of | time. | jude- wrote: | > Banning PoW cryptocurrencies removes money that is | currently on the side of "don't pass climate legislation | because it will harm my PoW cryptocurrency business" from | the table. That makes passing future legislation easier. | | Does it? And, do you have data that backs this up? It | stands to reason to me that PoW miners only want cheap | power; they don't really care too much how it gets | generated. Considering that the cheapest power source you | can build out today is green energy, it sounds like a | win-win to me for them to put their money into "advocate | for more cheap power." | LudwigNagasena wrote: | > The law doesn't need to try and anticipate the actions | that occur in the future | | But that's exactly what the law should do... | jedimastert wrote: | > don't let perfect be the enemy of good | | I don't think this applies to laws. In fact, I'd claim the | opposite. Laws are something you REALLY want to get right | bidirectional wrote: | It applies to laws in the sense being discussed here. Ban | X which is really bad while not banning Y which is | totally unrelated but happens to be bad in the same way. | Why does that need to be perfectly right? | beaner wrote: | You answered literally nothing that the person you're | responding to asked. | Garlef wrote: | You are right. | | Instead, they explained why these questions are | (partially) misguided. | | That's also an answer. | beaner wrote: | They didn't do that either. It reads more like avoidance. | The semblance of an answer by posting anything, rather | than a plain, direct response. Which gives the original | questions more weight: why were they not able to be | responded to directly? Are the questions potent? Your | reply here is just shifty on shifty. | stale2002 wrote: | You really don't understand the problem with asking | questions like "well who decides?!?" To literally every | proposal of legislation ever? | | Because that is what always happens. Every time someone | make s a general proposal, for any law at all, there are | people making the same old, dumb argument, of "well who | decides?!?" Every single time. | | Sure you do not believe that all laws ever are wrong, | right? | | Because the answer to this dumb question is the same as | for every law ever. That makes it valid, unless you | believe that all laws ever are bad. | beaner wrote: | I don't understand. We clearly have general laws like | "don't shoot people," rather than 320 million individual | laws like "John Edmund Smith IV of Springfield, Ohio | cannot shoot people." And we didn't start with laws | targeting individuals and then broaden it later. "Don't | shoot people" was the proper, general rule that addresses | the problem of shootings. Laws like this seem to be | pretty effective and desirable. I don't know why we | wouldn't take the same approach with something like | carbon emissions. | stale2002 wrote: | > And we didn't start with laws targeting | | There are absolutely many laws, that are very targeted | and specific. Were you unaware of this? | | For a random example, there are laws that probably say | something like "A truck, of this size, must follow these | specific environmental regulations". | | That would be a specific law, that applies to a truck, | and required it to do a specific thing, like have a | certain mileage efficiency, and it is not general. It is | pretty specific, and it is not a general law that applies | to all environmental related things. | | The world is full of many specific laws, all over the | place. | mcdonje wrote: | They answered it. The person they were responding to was | trying to broaden the scope too much. Many laws purposely | have narrow scopes in order to handle problems that arise | without setting too much precedent. | beaner wrote: | They did not answer it. "Broaden the scope too much" - | why? The question seems completely appropriate if you're | actually trying to solve the climate problem. The | response didn't address this, it targets crypto | specifically, which makes it seem like the motivations | are not climate but something else. | | The question was about how to choose who is using too | much and how, and the response was basically "don't think | about it, we will exist in the future and can think about | it then." But we exist now. And even if we were to wait, | it's still a question we can answer now to have enacted | later. The response provided was a bypass, a non-answer. | bko wrote: | > The law doesn't need to try and anticipate the actions | that occur in the future | | That's an incredibly dangerous idea. | hjek wrote: | Bitcoin is an incredibly dangerous idea because of its | contributions to the climate crisis. | nickpp wrote: | Would you like to ban all that contributes to the climate | crisis then? How about ice cream? Or flying to a vacation | spot? Or having kids? | hjek wrote: | Now "the antifa Biden voters are stealing our hamburgers" | again. | doggosphere wrote: | Bitcoin does not consume fossil fuel as a raw material; | it is not an ingredient required for its operation. It | uses electricity which can be generated from any source, | be it wind, solar, or coal. | | Subsidized coal mining and untaxed carbon emissions are | dangerous ideas. | lottin wrote: | Gratuitous use of electricity is anti-economical | regardless of the source. | doggosphere wrote: | Electricity has higher economic value due to miners | seeking to maximize profits. | | This makes investments in renewable energy infrastructure | more profitable and paid off sooner. A solar farm has | more demand and higher margin for its products. | | On the other hand, it means cheap coal energy is also | financially productive. | | What is anti-economical is the unfair price competition | due to externalities not captured by coal energy's | pricing. | webXL wrote: | "gratuitous use" is completely subjective, so the anti- | economical assertion isn't provable. You're suggesting | there are no trade-offs between PoS and PoW, no tradeoffs | between solar+batteries vs coal or nuclear. | lottin wrote: | Yes, I'm saying there are no trade-offs between PoS and | PoW. If there's one I'd like to know what it is. | webXL wrote: | PoS can be easily copied and modified by the powerful. | There's little cost to create the system and force | adoption rather than incentivize. There's an enormous | amount of investment and technology dedicated to bitcoin | that makes it more resistant to devaluation and | duplication. But it saves electricity. That's the trade- | off. | | Why not focus on the source of the electricity rather | than what the electricity is used for? | lottin wrote: | I don't see how proof-of-waste makes bitcoin more | resistant to devaluation and duplication. How would | switching to proof-of-stake make bitcoin more prone to | devaluation, for instance? As far as duplication is | concerned, bitcoin is open-source software which means | anyone can duplicate it and make derivative works from | it. There are dozens of bitcoin clones. It doesn't seem | that bitcoin is resistant to duplication at all, or that | there is any reason the lack of difficulty with which it | can be duplicated should be influenced by whether it uses | proof-of-waste or proof-of-stake. | webXL wrote: | Any software engineer can clone Twitter. The value of it | is in the network and the high cost of users switching | because they can't convince the people they follow and | those who follow them to switch at once. The same applies | to Bitcoin, but miners have an even higher cost of | switching because they have specialized hardware that can | only generate revenue on the Bitcoin network. Ethereum | validators have a much lower cost to switch. | | > proof-of-waste | | It's Proof of Work. Productive work has value and in this | case, it's widely distributed censorship-resistant | validation of transactions. | lottin wrote: | Network effects have to do with the amount of users, not | with the choice between proof-of-waste and proof-of- | stake. | matheusmoreira wrote: | It's not even 1% of global energy consumption. Surely | there are far more dangerous things to worry about out | there. | blibble wrote: | it's not 1% of energy consumption... yet | | there's every incentive for it to keep growing forever, | which is what makes it dangerous | | vs. there's only so much ice cream people can eat | Shaanie wrote: | Isn't it still quite insane that around 0.5% of our | global energy usage is spent on bitcoin, though? | broighbrobroigh wrote: | How much of our global energy usage is spent on poorly | implemented ACPI code, Windows drivers, inefficient GPU | drivers, etc... | | Even better, how much energy is wasted per page view due | to inefficient frontend web frameworks? | | Seems to me that code is speech, and restricting what one | can and can't do with silicon that one owns is absolutely | ridiculous. | matheusmoreira wrote: | Bitcoin? Yes, it's a useless coin. I wouldn't mind _even | higher_ amounts of energy being spent on Monero though. | | It's good that Ethereum is moving to proof of stake. Not | because of some environmental impact though. Mining is | just really expensive, it results in huge fees making the | coin almost unusable for normal people. | reedjosh wrote: | 100% Monero is amazing. 1500+tps and it's just getting | started. Faster transaction speeds, privacy, just | awesome! | matheusmoreira wrote: | Yeah. It's essentially a perfected version of bitcoin. It | should be the number one currency. | doggosphere wrote: | Is it? Over time human energy creation and consumption | has grown exponentially with technological innovation. | Fire to cook meat, a wagon attached to an ox, combustion | engines, air conditioning, wireless networks, data | centers, etc. | | Today you probably consume more energy in a few days than | your ancestors whole lives. | | Now, we've created distributed, immutable property, | something that has never existed before. It turns | electricity into value storage. What is the "correct" | amount of energy for humans to spend on such a thing? | hjek wrote: | > What is the "correct" amount of energy for humans to | spend on such a thing? | | Perhaps the "correct" amount is less than what it would | take to increase planet temperature by 4degC? | doggosphere wrote: | Energy consumption has nothing to do with increasing | planet temperature, if Bitcoin consumed 10x the energy | via solar panels, it would not have any environmental | impact beyond the raw materials used in the panels. | | You're equating energy usage to carbon emissions, but you | should be able to distinguish the difference. | hjek wrote: | > Energy consumption has nothing to do with increasing | planet temperature, | | As long as we're using fossil fuels, planet temperature | _does_ in fact have _something_ to do with energy | consumption. You seem to be arguing that because | renewable energy sources exists, Bitcoin has _nothing_ to | do with fossil fuel emissions. However, that is false, as | 8% of Bitcoin mining happens in Inner Mongolia, which is | home to many of China 's large coal mines[0]. | | [0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets- | and-tech/bi... | doggosphere wrote: | I'm arguing that China subsidizes coal[0], and that China | does not utilize a carbon tax[1]. | | So when you call for a ban of Bitcoin in the name in | environmental concerns, you've decided to be the arbiter | of energy usage, on what is productive and valuable, and | what is not. | | You're welcome to argue your points, but it would still | be far more efficient and productive to addresses the | actual core problem: coal fire plants, and energy prices. | | [0]: https://www.iisd.org/gsi/faqs/china | | [1]: https://www.carbontax.org/issues/what-about-china/ | reedjosh wrote: | How much energy maintains the USD's reserve status? | matheusmoreira wrote: | According to some other comment on this thread: | | > a bunch of aircraft carriers and planes and bombs and | people with big guns, which gives the ability to say | (credibly) that it is a crime to forge dollars no matter | who you are or where you live | | Cryptocurrency offers all this and more for a fraction of | the price. | hjek wrote: | It's using more energy than most countries: | | > Current estimates put bitcoin's energy requirements at | around 130 terawatt-hours (TWh) annually, which would | rank it in the top 30 electricity consumers worldwide if | it were a country. | | Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets- | and-tech/bi... | matheusmoreira wrote: | Not even 1%. The USA alone pollutes a ton more and is | always utterly unapologetic about it. Historically I | don't think they ever adhered to any global effort or | treaty to reduce pollution. You have big entrenched | organizations such as the oil industry doing far more | damage and nobody messes with them. Not to mention the | entire developed world's dependency on China for their | borderline useless cheap consumer products. | | This concern over the environmental impact of | cryptocurrencies is utterly laughable when you figure out | the _real_ source of these problems. I guess they 're | just too powerful to be messed with. | hjek wrote: | > Nobody messes with them. | | Well, some environmental activists try by turning off oil | valves[0], just like environmental activists are upset | with Bitcoin. | | > You have big entrenched organizations such as the oil | industry doing far more damage. | | People who criticize Bitcoin for its environmental impact | don't give a pass to oil companies. The issues overlap, | like in Texas where they plug Bitcoin mining rigs | straight into the oil well[1]. | | But I hear you. All big entrenched organizations must be | held accountable. Of course. | | [0]: | https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/companies- | dec... | | [1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate- | change/news/bitcoin-mi... | matheusmoreira wrote: | The problem isn't even bitcoin mining, it's pollution. | The energy usage wouldn't matter at all if it was | generated via renewable sources such as solar. | | People who want to see real change need to deal with | fossil fuels. Taxing mining operations will do absolutely | nothing to solve the actual problems of this world. | [deleted] | imtringued wrote: | > and how do you punish those who use too much? | | CO2 taxes | est31 wrote: | IDK in Germany it's forbidden per SS 30 StVO to drive around | senselessly inside settlements. You are still allowed to | drive around, even if the reasons are stupid. But if they are | too stupid, police can fine you. There is a youtuber in | Berlin who specializes in driving around for hours and he's | been stopped by police already. The original video has been | made private [0], but a raw version of it still exists [1]. | | [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLozreFvl24 | | [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LfccX_pBHM | riskable wrote: | Is the reason for the law to reduce the number of cars on | the road or is it more to reduce emissions? | | I'm curious if someone driving an electric would get | ticketed as well. | hobofan wrote: | It's mainly to reduce emissions and to protect the local | environment. The paragraph also more generally states | that you have to "prevent unnecessary noise pollution and | emissions", which as we learn in driving school also | means shutting off your motor when sitting at a red | light. | lostandbored wrote: | So at redlights you need to turn off your car, then turn | it back on when it changes to green | | EDIT: Specify the part of the post that bewildered me. | kapp_in_life wrote: | Many recent car models do this by themselves nowadays. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start-stop_system#History | lostandbored wrote: | Huh, that is really cool. Never heard of it. | | Thanks for the information. | tnecio wrote: | I think the real problem is that there is no cost associated | with emitting CO2 for the emitter even though it creates | tremendous costs for the society in the long term. If there | was a tax associated with the act of emitting CO2 itself | (purpose of which could be to invest in green technologies) | then the market could be the arbiter. | toomanybeersies wrote: | The key difference is that I'm certain that Facebook makes | continuous efforts to use less energy. Maybe not for | environmental reasons, but they have an economic incentive to | increase efficiency. | | Regulating the energy consumption/efficiency is more akin to | fuel efficiency standards for cars. | csomar wrote: | > who's the arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use | case? | | The king. The digital crypto king. | mgdev wrote: | Facebook is net-zero emissions. | dheera wrote: | It's easier to get Facebook to be carbon neutral because they | are a centralized institution, and it only takes a committed | government to zero down on a corporation and force them to | move to clean energy or pay a carbon tax. | | With crypto it's too decentralized to implement either. | | > who's the arbiter of what's "too much" power for a use case | | Ultimately Mother Nature will be the arbiter. If people spend | too much time arguing about politics instead of either | lowering power usage or moving to clean energy, those people | will be killed sooner or later. | DCKing wrote: | > If that's the case, who's the arbiter of what's "too much" | power for a use case? | | I see a lot of people replying with a slippery slope argument | of this nature, which makes me think I should explain my | argument better. | | I'm not arguing that burning electricity _alone_ is the | problem. I 'm arguing that burning electricity for the direct | purpose of making a financial product is a problem for | society, when 1) the financial product explicitly | incentivizes burning up _as much as you can_ to make more | money and /or 2) burning up that energy can be alleviated by | other technical solutions. | | I'm not arguing that mining should be illegal. I'm saying the | 'sale' of the results of that mining should be illegal. Using | or making incandescent lightbulbs is not illegal, but the | sale of them is banned or restricted in large portions of the | world [1]. Less harmful alternatives exist, so sale is | disincentivized, the world moves on. | | This is not the government deciding how you spend energy | resources. You can continue to mine all you want. But you | shouldn't be rewarded for that. | | One thing I should point out is that I recognize that an | alternative solution for these incentives is to make | electricity always so expensive that it costs more money in | electricity spend to mine crypto than you can make money of | it. Make electricity price depend on crypto price. Needless | to say I don't see that working out :) | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase- | out_of_incandescent_ligh... | bcrosby95 wrote: | The elephant in the room is bitcoin literally requires the | mass consumption of computation to work - the more the | better. And it was designed this way. In comparison, Facebook | and industrial processes work to make their processes more | efficient and use less resources for their workload. Bitcoin | will just gobble up any efficiency to do more mining and end | up consuming the same amount of resources. | | Bitcoin is an endless energy pit. The same isn't true of | things like Facebook. | chrisan wrote: | I'm not a user of Facebook, but is their electrical use near | bitcoin levels? | | The quick google says facebook uses 5 while bitcoin uses 143 | terawatt-hours | trimbo wrote: | > So burning electricity on running a cryptocurrency is not | right, but burning electricity on running servers for | Facebook or user tracking is all right? | | Spinning up cores to do intensive math for the sake of its | difficulty is wasting energy by design. PoW's financial | incentive is to waste power. | | Facebook spends a massive amount of money on compute, and | their profit is only as good as the margin they can make over | that compute cost. Therefore they have a financial incentive | to save power. | crazygringo wrote: | > _If that 's the case, who's the arbiter of what's "too | much" power for a use case?_ | | The legislature and the regulatory agencies it has created, | obviously. | | The exact same way literally every other environmental | regulation has ever been passed. | | There are entire _divisions_ of agencies _dedicated_ to | drawing the line of "too much" in all sorts of areas, for | pollution, poisons, contamination, energy usage, etc. In | fact, pretty much everyone but extreme libertarians agrees | this is one of the main functions of government. | | So while you might not agree on the resulting policy or even | the mechanisms that arrived at it, it _is_ a solved problem. | You don 't need to wonder _how_ we 'd accomplish it -- that | part is easy. | tphyahoo2 wrote: | You want air conditioning? You want to eat steak? You want some | microprocessors with that guided missile? | | Buy bitcoin. | | https://web.archive.org/web/20210116135412/https://taaalk.co... | citilife wrote: | Bitcoins "power consumption" has two aspects - mining and | processing transactions. The power consumption used for mining | (or processing) is directly correlated to the relative earning | potential - i.e. bitcoin price - power cost. Mining takes up | the vast majority of the computation(s) and mining bitcoin | should end somewhere between 2040 and 2050. | | That is to say, it's self correcting. If the price of energy | increases, there is less mining. Alternatively, the miners are | also incentivized to find cheaper or develop cheaper | alternatives; this spurs innovation. | | If prices rise due to mining, innovation will take place and | more energy will be developed. | | There's nothing wrong with this mechanism, as it corrects | itself. In 2050 when you can no longer mine bitcoin we will | that have an abundance of cheap power. Which is the single | greatest factor in reducing poverty. | | Frankly, I think this comment is off base. So far there have | been zero negative measurable impacts from power usage related | to crypto. | meowkit wrote: | This is a really weak argument. The better argument is we | shouldn't tell people how to use energy they purchase and to | tax consumption of it. | | > innovation will take place and more energy will be | developed. | | This has way too many assumptions baked in. Increased demand | will not guarantee a clean supply, nor does it guarantee | technological progress in performance of efficiency. | delaaxe wrote: | Bitcoin mining uses as much energy as Christmas lights in the | USA. Should we ban Christmas lights because of their energy | usage? This debate is turning to madness | | https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-mining-energy-consumption-us-... | jude- wrote: | More feasible take: ban the trade of PoW coins that cannot be | shown to have been mined via green energy. | seniorivn wrote: | it's all bullshit | | Just ban people doing bad things, like all of them. | | Problem solved | | All problems solved | lend000 wrote: | This is an Orwellian take to want the government to tell you | how you're allowed to use electricity. Is watching TV a waste | of energy? How much energy goes into steaming Netflix? | | If you want to target an externality of the free market, do it | directly: simply tax emissions. This will guide the market | towards greener energy generation and direct capital out of | activities that produce emissions without generated value. | whywhywhywhy wrote: | > Ban their trade because global society shouldn't accept | rampant incentives to literally burn up energy | | Videogames run GPUs at full capacity too, we should ban them | too. No one NEEDS to pretend to be a cowboy for 100+ hours each | across 36 million GPUs. | | Actually maybe there should be a ban on computing power above | mobile CPUs available to non-government bodies, if this really | is so devastating to the environment we need to limit the | amount of damage people can cause as individuals, why does a | normal person need a GPU anyway when smart phone graphics | should be enough. | goda90 wrote: | But gamers aren't buying up dozens of GPUs each to pretend to | be a cowboy, and they don't pretend to be a cowboy 24/7. | reedjosh wrote: | POW guarantees distributed security better than any other | currency so far. POS relies on a _relatively_ small number of | nodes to run the network. | | POW is more _government_ proof than any other method. To many | the threat of central bank digital currencies is justification | enough for POW's energy consumption. | LeftTriangle wrote: | You people obsessed with reducing humanity's energy usage are | so tiresome. Anyone who actually cares about the well-being of | humanity should be focused on increasing the amount of energy | available. I want to climb the kardashev scale, not live in an | eco-pod and eat bug burgers so I can scrounge every last joule. | Graffur wrote: | Who is working on this problem today? | cwkoss wrote: | Arguably, all of the Bitcoin miners. | | Bitcoin mining creates a price floor for energy. It is a | buyer of last resort with infinite appetite. By pushing up | the value of energy in the market, it encourages expansion | of energy production. | ohgodplsno wrote: | What you want and the realities of our current world are two | very, very different things. | nmfisher wrote: | The reality of the current world is that a _lot of people | feel exactly like that_ , so you're unlikely to convince | them to change their behaviour. | | Rather than deny that reality, you're better off working | with it to produce more, but cleaner, energy. | rwcarlsen wrote: | Necessity is the mother of invention. | | [edit] - downvotes because I used the word "mother" maybe? | I don't understand this community. | hunter2_ wrote: | We all want luxury, but at some point the changes that come | from energy usage will be very unluxurious, no? | LeftTriangle wrote: | Yeah, maybe when we've exhausted the sun's net output. | tastyfreeze wrote: | Bingo! The more energy a system has available the greater | capability it has. For example, if a mining community is able | to generate cheap excess power it opens up possibility for | local smelting and foundry industries. | | I think of each community as a game of Civilization. As you | progress you unlock higher rungs of the tech ladder. | Exporting your raw materials to later import finished | products made from them is a waste of resources and stagnates | the local industries at the raw material stage. | | What industries could be developed in your community if the | power was available? | mmmmmbop wrote: | Could somebody help me understand the valuation of Ether? | | Let's assume for a second that future developments in the the | Ethereum protocol really unlock the widespread use of distributed | apps, and herald a new technological era. As far as I understand, | Ethereum optimists are betting that then people will be forced to | buy Ether to participate in this Internet of distributed apps, | driving the price higher. | | In this (optimistic) case, wouldn't someone just start a new | blockchain with the Ethereum protocol? It's open source, right? | To me it seems that a new blockchain that e.g. gives every human | a wallet pre-filled with the amount of Ether needed for staking | (plus some extra) would appeal more to the vast majority of | people than a blockchain where the early adopters are the new | rubber barons of the Internet. | scsilver wrote: | People are buying it now to run apps making money off of defi. | Binance has their own network thats growing similarly. Both do | have a huge amount of speculators. There are other up and | coming complements to the market aswell including Polkadot. | | Some like ethereum for its maturity and dev team. | hanniabu wrote: | Imo Polkadot is "obsolete" now with Ethereum moving forward | with a rollup-centric roadmap since L2 rollups are pretty | much the same as parachains. | exo762 wrote: | What is your take on Near? | SmellTheGlove wrote: | > People are buying it now to run apps making money off of | defi. | | Serious question - what does this actually mean? What defi | apps are people running to make money besides minting other | coins? | seibelj wrote: | In the internet, the more websites and APIs exist, the greater | the utility of the internet as a whole - the sum of its parts | is worth more than each individually. | | With Ethereum, every time a new smart contract is added to | Ethereum, the whole network becomes more useful, as each | contract can communicate with each other. You can assemble new | applications based on the building blocks of existing | contracts. | mmmmmbop wrote: | Are the smart contracts not out in the open? Can you not just | copy over the good/useful smart contracts as well? | wmf wrote: | You can copy the code but not the money. A distributed | exchange with no traders isn't very useful, for example. | hanniabu wrote: | > wouldn't someone just start a new blockchain with the | Ethereum protocol? | | Sure, and many have, but they don't have the security, | decentralization, dev mindshare, community, tooling, or | ecosystem that Ethereum has. | cwkoss wrote: | > To me it seems that a new blockchain that e.g. gives every | human a wallet pre-filled with the amount of Ether needed for | staking (plus some extra) would appeal more to the vast | majority of people than a blockchain where the early adopters | are the new rubber barons of the Internet. | | That sounds awesome. If you can securely deliver a | cryptographic key to every human on the planet and teach them | to use it, I'd happily invest my life savings towards that | ends. Unfortunately due to disparities in education, safety and | access to technology, I think this is a near-impossible task in | 2021. | | Cardano is issuing cryptographic student IDs to 5M students in | Ethiopia though! The future is bright! | exo762 wrote: | Re: valuation. The biggest contributing factor is speculation. | I think it dwarfs every other possible factor. The second | biggest one - fees are paid in ETH, and fees will continue to | be paid in ETH. More, EIP-1559 will actively decrease amount of | ETH in circulation by requiring miners to burn ETH to include | transactions via base-fee mechanism. | | Re: new chain / forking. Just network effect. Ethereum | currently secures huge amount of value in DeFi. Any new network | will not have those funds in it. There are also stablecoins. If | blockchain-native assets (BTC, ETH, DAI etc) can be "doubled" | by forking (e.g. BTC to BTC+BCH) it's not possible for fiat- | backed assets such as USDC, USDT, EURc etc. Issuing bank has to | pick a side of the fork. | wmf wrote: | There are already new Ethereum-compatible blockchains like | Avalanche but they're missing out on the network effects that | exist on the original Ethereum chain. | | The only use of crypto is to get rich by being an early | adopter. It's easy to design a new system that doesn't benefit | early adopters but no one will care about it. | jerye wrote: | I'm interested to know more about a system that doesn't | benefit early adopters... Do you have any sources? Thanks :) | wmf wrote: | Basically either stablecoins or some kind of volatility | dampening which would increase emission in sync with | adoption. Nobody wants this so there's not much work being | done on it. | bigphishy wrote: | IF it merges. That's a big "if" The ethereum Miners will rebel, | "The Merge" will introduce catastrophic bugs, 0-days will appear. | | However, if it does successfully transfer to proof of stake, | we're in for a long and exciting ride. | | Trust is a valuable commodity these days. | suikadayo wrote: | It's not up to the miners to decide, it's up to the nodes to | decide. | | Also, merge testnet is up already, making sure there are no | significant issues. | exo762 wrote: | > The ethereum Miners will rebel | | I don't think miners can do anything about this. In the worst | case, they coordinate to stop mining on N-1 block. But this | requires an amazing level of coordination, plus network can | directly bribe/reward next block producer by paying to | `coinbase` address (real `coinbase`, not Armstrong's coinbase). | | > "The Merge" will introduce catastrophic bugs, 0-days will | appear. | | This is why you have testnets. | | > we're in for a long and exciting ride. | | Definitely! | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | testnets are great, but cannot approximate the economic | impact of technical decisions as they have zero value. Just | because it works on a testnet is not a good justification | that it would work at scale on a chain worth billions. | exo762 wrote: | I agree. Ropsten is the proof. Still, I'm fine with | Ethereum moving fast and breaking things. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Ropsten coins are worthless, and cannot approximate or | prove anything cryptoecomically. | | Moving fast and breaking things is great for things of no | consequence, but for decentralized money -- I'm not a fan | of this philosophy! I like slow, methodical, well tested, | well reasoned code from the best minds in the space -- | aka Bitcoin. | exo762 wrote: | > Ropsten coins are worthless, and cannot approximate or | prove anything cryptoecomically. | | We agree on that. You misread my comment. | | My risk tolerance is just different than yours. I've sold | all of my BTC for ETH long time ago. Everyone is building | on top of Ethereum, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin's meme about | "every worthy usecase will get implemented on top of | Bitcoin"... it's short-lived. Flippening is nigh, why | would people re-implement something which exist on | dominant chain on a chain that is subpar in every | possible way? | | And I disagree about best minds. Bitcoin hasn't produced | anything of interest for a long long time. Most patient? | Surely. Best? Not even close. Maxwell has missed zero- | knowledge proofs in 2013. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | Lets revisit this in 5 years. Everybody regrets selling | their bitcoin for magic beans eventually. | musesum wrote: | Ironically, lowering the cost of mining may also lower the value | of the asset. | RealityVoid wrote: | I struggle to understand how you came to this conclusion. | o_p wrote: | I think the final outcome of this is that people will go to the | next hot PoW coin and the eth "elites" will be left alone playing | oligarch | sollewitt wrote: | As per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26943408 encouraging | folks to state their stake in the comments. | fredfoobar wrote: | Everything in this universe is analogous to Proof of Work, it's | the most natural system out there. If there is a base monetary | layer for the internet, it should be Proof of Work based (and | Bitcoin, because it's got the most work done to improve the | technology + network effects). | manx wrote: | Could you elaborate a bit? Why do you think that? | fredfoobar wrote: | The crux of it is that you can't rewrite history trivially, | you have to expend a lot energy to change history, and energy | can't be created nor destroyed. | | For something specific to bitcoin/blockchain: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrwgYDAoZV0 | jtsiskin wrote: | Can you give an example? Struggling with analogy | 0134340 wrote: | And Stake is derived from Work. Some of you assume PoS exists | within its own ecosystem. Even in PoW, the work is derived from | previous works, ie, the work required to buy and build the | hardware and pay for electricity, etc. | fredfoobar wrote: | Yeah, now you are proposing a system that is going to be | secured purely on that stake everyone acquired, THAT's the | issue. | 0134340 wrote: | It doesn't exist within its own ecosystem, as I mentioned. | Stake is derived from work and work itself is a security, | ie, your work is secured by prior works. Everything that | built it needed prior work and everything to secure it | needs prior security, up the ladder you'd have yourself to | secure and work for the currency, your community along with | its own governance to state level and on and on up the | ladder. PoW and PoS both exist within the same ecosystem. | fredfoobar wrote: | Except, most people chose to move their stake from one | system (USD) to another (ETH) and now, you are a powerful | person in this new system. If you owned more stake in the | Bitcoin network, you are still a user. | sva_ wrote: | The minimum amount of Ether to be eligible to stake is 32 Coins, | so it appears that last year in June, about 120k addresses | would've met that criterion[0]. That probably changed by now, I'd | assume the number to be higher as more people set up 'mining | rigs'. That's at least a larger number than I would've guessed. I | wonder how many people/entities are behind those addresses. | | On a side note, I have mixed feelings about PoS. The idea behind | Ethereum - that is, as I understand it, being able to deploy | smart contracts using a Turing complete language -, is pretty | intriguing; but the costs associated with doing so put me off. I | tried to estimate how much it'd cost to deploy a fairly small | smart contract a couple days ago (admittedly when 'gas costs' | were high), and it would've been several hundred dollars, perhaps | even surpassing a thousand. It seems like PoS would lower that, | which is good, but comes at the great cost that people who aren't | already in the game won't be able to acquire Ether without | basically paying cash for it. That's a weird dependence on fiat | currencies for a 'decentralized ledger'. (And yeah, there might | be other means, but none of them are really practical for the | average person.) | | If there hadn't already been cryptocurrencies, nobody would've | thought PoS to be a good idea. A bunch of people who hold some | digital certificates that predictably multiply themselves want | people to give them money to 'acquire' those? That would've | sounded like a scam to me... | | [0] https://decrypt.co/31646/nearly-120000-ethereum-wallets- | prim... | miohtama wrote: | You can do pooled staking with small additional risks: | | https://capitalgram.com/posts/ethereum-2.0-staking-and-stake... | X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: | I too have been skeptical of PoS, but IMO the thinking behind | it has gotten better and better and there are pretty large | chains that have been running without compromise. | | Thankfully with ETH 2.0 the cost of publishing data on the | chain will drop dramatically (there will be ~63x increase in | throughput of publishing data, not transactions) so contract | creation should be cheaper. | | But really if you are interested in the space it might make | sense to just publish on an L2 like polygon. | djrhails wrote: | Frankly, right now anyone who isn't already in the game isn't | able to acquire Ether without paying for it. | | Mining at a rate necessary to get any reasonable amount of | Ether is a huge investment, and is already out of reach for the | average person. Setting your desktop computer to mine | definitely won't pay for your small smart contract. | sva_ wrote: | > Mining at a rate necessary to get any reasonable amount of | Ether is a huge investment, | | I started mining on my own PC a couple weeks ago, with the | GPUs I already had (2x 1080ti) and made about 0.5 Ether so | far. So it's definitely not impossible to get enough currency | that enables you to interact or even deploy a smart contract | on a consumer PC with a little bit of time. | webinvest wrote: | What mining software are you using? | sva_ wrote: | I just use PhoenixMiner. Anything that has the feature of | reducing memory latency ('-straps 2'). Getting 47 mhash/s | per 1080ti with that. | | I actually had to spin up a Virtual Machine with GPU | passthrough to launch Windows because I couldn't get the | GPU tweaks working on Linux. Really nice how vfio is now | in the Linux kernel, it's been a breeze going through the | setup (compared to a couple years ago when you needed a | custom kernel.) | sschueller wrote: | Same goes for staking in ETH2 as you don't need 32 ETH. You | can join a stake pool. | everfree wrote: | >but comes at the great cost that people who aren't already in | the game won't be able to acquire Ether without basically | paying cash for it. That's a weird dependence on fiat | currencies for a 'decentralized ledger'. (And yeah, there might | be other means, but none of them are really practical for the | average person.) | | There's no inherent weird dependency on cash, there's only a | dependency on whatever currency people choose to pay each other | for work, which currently happens to be cash. | | If people started paying each other in Ethereum-based tokens, | you could close the loop and cash would not be a dependency. | micropresident wrote: | It is a scam -- all current crypto is a scam for the same | reason. One of the other things that people don't understand is | that currency and government are inseparable. When you buy Eth | (or any other crypto) you're buying into a new system of | government. | | Do you want to be a citizen of that new government? What will | they do for their citizens? Do they plan to build roads or | anything else? | | Seigniorage should go to the people not the capital holders. | | Also, if people don't think there will be validators for each | wallet with 32 coins -- which are producing Co2 -- then they | are wrong. It just changes the game, not the incentives. | 0134340 wrote: | Currency and local government can be completely divorced and | I think crypto will prove this in the future. I don't think | governments will begin to care one way or another as long as | they get theirs and taxes are paid. If you can score currency | from around the globe and bring it home to a more local | domain and pay in to the system where you live, they should | have no problem with it. | | And the validators, PoS anyway, use very little energy even | compared to traditional coin minting. | SwagtimusPrime wrote: | >but comes at the great cost that people who aren't already in | the game won't be able to acquire Ether without basically | paying cash for it. That's a weird dependence on fiat | currencies for a 'decentralized ledger'. | | PoW is just as much depending on fiat currencies. You can't get | electricity without paying for it, you can't get a mining rig | without paying for it, etc. This is one of the more common | critiques against PoS and it just doesn't hold true at all. | With the decentralized finance ecosystem, you can put any | supported asset to work and earn ETH or stablecoins or anything | else you want and accumulate that way. | sva_ wrote: | >This is one of the more common critiques against PoS and it | just doesn't hold true at all. | | Maybe I'm an edge-case (I don't think so), but I was able to | use the hardware I already owned, and the electricity already | included in my utilities bill to acquire enough Ether that | would allow me to deploy a smart contract. That won't be | possible anymore in the future. So you're factually wrong, at | least in my case. | wmf wrote: | Globally, very few people have gaming GPUs. You're super- | privileged and you're effectively arguing for locking in | your privilege and making the other 90% of the world worse | off. PoS puts everyone on an equal footing. You want to | stake? Buy in. | sva_ wrote: | PoS does not put everyone on an equal footing. PoS | privileges those who got in early and had the money or | hardware to acquire a large chunk of the coin. | | It's ridiculous you talk about financial privilege. Who | the hell do you think owns most crypto? You think it is | people living on the streets in India? Children in | Africa? | | You sound super delusional. I can't believe it. | kd0amg wrote: | You definitely are an edge case if you were already paying | your utility bills in cryptocurrency. Otherwise, you spent | fiat currency to bootstrap your use of Etherium. | sva_ wrote: | I didn't mean that I pay my electricity bill in crypto. I | meant that my small apartment has a fixed electricity | rate so that I don't have to pay any extra for running 2 | GPUs, and that I already owned the hardware to mine, | independent of crypto. So I didn't invest anything. Sorry | for being unclear. | themagician wrote: | Does anyone know of an estimate of how many individuals actually | hold ETH? | | The transaction fees are absolutely ludicrous. I can't imagine | the dispersion is actually as high as some people seem to think | it is. | h4kor wrote: | > Several teams of engineers are working overtime to ensure that | The Merge arrives as soon as possible, and without compromising | on safety. | | Overworking your engineers will most definitely lead to | compromises. | | But good to see that Ethereum came to their senses and are | serious about reducing the environmental impact they have. | bpodgursky wrote: | PoS has been the goal of Ethereum for a long, long time. | | I don't know the technicals of why the migration has been | gradual, but the destination has never really been in doubt. | svarog-run wrote: | Are you serious? This was proposed in the initial white paper. | It's not something that suddenly came to mind. This stuff takes | time | bhandziuk wrote: | I think they're being hyperbolic. "we're working really hard to | make it happen" | serial_dev wrote: | Yes, I would not read much into it. In the end, writing "We | were sort of working on it at a reasonable pace, you know, | work life balance is more important to our developers than | finishing a month earlier" just doesn't have the same ring to | it :) | NikolaeVarius wrote: | No it doesnt. Having hard time/budget/whatever constraints | does. | | Otherwise, theoretically you can "overwork" i.e. (work more | than standard 40 hour weeks or some standard of work hours) | whatever without compromise | shakna wrote: | > Otherwise, theoretically you can "overwork" i.e. (work more | than standard 40 hour weeks or some standard of work hours) | whatever without compromise | | That's simply not true. Humans aren't machines. Productivity | falls off a cliff after 50 hours, and after 55 you may as | well not even be in the office. There are diminishing returns | with "overwork"ing. | | [0] https://siepr.stanford.edu/research/publications/producti | vit... | ysavir wrote: | On paper, sure. In practice, having people overworked leads | to compromises you never intend to make, simply due to | exhaustion and burden clouding judgement values. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Thats a problem of process where errors are caught. | | It makes things more inefficient, but it doesn't compromise | final quality assuming issues are found and addressed. | nradov wrote: | No quality control process can reliably catch software | errors. That's why it's generally better to prevent | errors rather than catching and fixing. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | Why does "normal working hours" solve the "reliably catch | software errors" issue. | dodobirdlord wrote: | Every software error? True. But essentially every | software error, especially errors of significance? | Untrue. The Space Shuttle control software was famous for | its rigorous process control, and deliberately written in | a language difficult to introduce bugs in. Over decades | of development and 420,000 total lines of code, it | appears that a total of 17 bugs ever made it into | software used during a launch, with an average of about 1 | bug at a time existing in the codebase. Processes to | prevent errors from being introduced played a huge part | in this, but the comprehensive verification and | simulation process was also necessary to achieve such a | low defect rate. | | https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff | nradov wrote: | The NASA Manager's Handbook for Software Development from | 1990 is a great resource. We have better techniques for | some areas now but most of it still holds up. | | https://sw-eng.larc.nasa.gov/supporting-products/archive- | of-... | ysavir wrote: | That's amazing work and dedication. | | But I feel it fair to consider an organization like NASA | as an exemption from the norm. This level of detailed | error catching doesn't make sense for, say, a facebook | clone startup. | | That said, someone should send this comment to a Tesla | engineer. | ysavir wrote: | So now you have to do extra work to catch errors, which | is a compromise in its own right. | NikolaeVarius wrote: | hence the inefficiency comment? | ysavir wrote: | That makes sense, but the point is that it's still a | compromise. Even if we're saying that people _can_ work | overtime to get things done, there 's typically | diminishing returns on each additional hour worked, and | still no guarantee that quality hasn't been impacted. | | If you ask people to work 12 hour days instead of 8 days, | does each day provide 8 hours worth of work, 12 hours | worth of work, or another value? Can we reliably say that | any problems arising from working over 12 hour days are | caught and handled at the same level as they would be if | people were working 8 hour days? | soperj wrote: | so the solution to overwork is more work? | NikolaeVarius wrote: | yes? That was literally my point, its less efficient, but | can be okay in terms of final output. | Nursie wrote: | Not sure that holds up to scrutiny, as often when people | are tired and overworked their output can dip negative. | | It's fine for a few days, but after that it's a false | economy. | kodah wrote: | > But good to see that Ethereum came to their senses and are | serious about reducing the environmental impact they have. | | Is it not possible there's good reasons they didn't move to | proof of stake sooner? "Came to their senses" seems to imply | they had no good reasons. | shanecoin wrote: | It has been the goal since day one. | | The Ethereum protocol was designed with PoS in mind and has a | built-in difficulty bomb[1] to prove it. In short, this | difficulty bomb makes it exponentially harder to mine ETH | over time. The goal of this feature was to encourage all | participants of the ecosystem to transition to PoS as quickly | as possible. | | Given that, the implementation has not worked out totally as | expected, as the difficulty bomb has been pushed back a few | times over the years. However, to answer your question, the | reason they did not move faster is because this transition is | hard and plays in some uncharted territory. | | [1] https://medium.com/fullstacked/the-ice-age-is-coming- | ee5ad5f... | baby wrote: | I don't think PoS was a thing when Ethereum was invented. | joshmarlow wrote: | It's mentioned in the whitepaper - | https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/ | | > Note that in the future, it is likely that Ethereum | will switch to a proof-of-stake model for security, | reducing the issuance requirement to somewhere between | zero and 0.05X per year. | rfd4sgmk8u wrote: | It absolutely was, Peercoin (PPC), and even DPoS (BTS) | predates ethereum too. What are they worth today? PoS is | a scam -- also Diem is worse -- it is dystopia. | svachalek wrote: | This has been the plan for a long time. But this is like | Google deciding to switch to Microsoft Windows, it's not | something they can just decide to do one day. There's a | process. It's a massive effort and hundreds of billions of | dollars are on the line. | kodah wrote: | Kinda what I figured. Thanks for the response. | throwkeep wrote: | Overtime != overwork. You've probably programmed something, at | some point, where you were excited to work on it from morning | to night? Where you lose track of hours, forget to eat meals | and completely in the zone? That could easily be the case with | these engineers, working on such a historical project and | consequential update. | bcrosby95 wrote: | I have. My whole team at once? Not really. | | Unless management is really vigilant, when people are working | overtime everyone on the team feels pressure to do the same. | greyhair wrote: | I have been in that zone for two or three day stretches, | but never beyond, and never in sync with a full team. I | have experienced two forms of team wide over-time in my | career. The first lasted (for me) about seven months, then | I quit. I couldn't take in anymore and the project (large | team, 150 people) was on fire. That was completely | unsustainable. The second form was a periodic event that | happened every two years when we released a new silicon | design (chip vendor). The day that the first silicon was | mounted onto boards began a cycle of ten to twelve days, 14 | hours a day, lunch and dinner being one hour status | briefings. All hands on deck. At the end of those ten or | twelve days, either the silicon was fully validated, or all | its known flaws were identified. And everybody on the team | took a couple days off to breath. That was sustainable | because it was infrequent, planned, and closed ended. I | went through four of those cycles. They were exhausting and | thrilling at the same time. And thankfully, infrequent and | closed ended. There was always a light at the end of the | tunnel. | hanniabu wrote: | This is a different dynamic than traditional organization. | It's decentralized with contributors around the world. You | have no idea how much others are working and many are | contributing because it's something they're passionate | about. | CarlBeek wrote: | Only time will be able to arbitrate this one, but we have | consistently pushed out time-lines to ensure that Ethereum | remains safe. Ethereum core development definitely favours | partition tolerance and safety over liveness. | CynicusRex wrote: | A more energy efficient pyramid Ponzi scheme. Congratulations. | grubles wrote: | Bitcoin layer-2 massively reduces the amount of energy used per | transaction. For every on-chain Bitcoin transaction, potentially | millions upon millions of Lightning transactions can occur. | roskelld wrote: | It should always be clear that bitcoin doesn't have an energy | use per transaction. The energy use of the network doesn't | increase with the number of transactions conducted. | | It's absolutely true that the layers built on top of bitcoin do | and will continue to present scale, allowing for more and | faster tx per second. | wyldfire wrote: | > Ethereum's power-hungry days are numbered, and I hope that's | true for the rest of the industry too. | | Ethereum has been talking about PoS for a long time, so until | they actually deliver we should be looking at existing | decentralized PoS coins. | suikadayo wrote: | It already exists https://beaconcha.in/ | sp332 wrote: | There is actual, visible progress, plus a built-in self- | destruct that will make continuing on the current chain | basically impossible. | crazypython wrote: | They've moved the self-destruct deadline multiple times. | sp332 wrote: | There will be a new PoW chain and a new PoS chain. The old | chain will technically exist but mining on it will be | impractical. There is no longer enough interest from miners | to make the new PoW chain the majority, so the winners of | this hard fork will be recognized as "Ethereum" and the | other miners will be relegated to a less influential chain. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26441399 | Vespasian wrote: | That's true but to be honest they pushed back the self | destruct several times in the past and will do so again if | needed. | | Still it's very likely that this time the switch to PoS might | finally happen unless something unforseen happens. | | The development was speed up by a (most likely) failed | attempt / pr-stunt of miners to block an unrelated change | which will reduce their profitability considerably in July. | wing-_-nuts wrote: | I wonder how this will impact mining? Will GPUs suddenly flood | the market as it becomes much less profitable to mine? God I hope | so the GPU shortages have been crazy. | josefresco wrote: | I've be lurking heavily in the crypto-mining communities for a | few weeks now. Most are saying they'll just "move to a new | coin" which is basically all they CAN do, unless they cash out | early and sell their hardware. Nvidia is releasing* "LHR" (low | hash rate) cards to give gamers some relief (assuming they | can't be jailbroken). | | *https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2021/05/18/lhr/ | ArkanExplorer wrote: | Its difficult to calculate exactly the % of GPU miners that | are mining Ethereum, amongst all possible choices. My | estimate is 50% - 90%. (Maybe someone can reply with better | data?) | | When Ethereum can no longer be mined, the returns on mining | the remaining 'altcoins' will fall equal to the level of new | mining power that enters. | | Which might very well make GPU mining uneconomical across the | board. | josefresco wrote: | > the returns on mining the remaining 'altcoins' will fall | equal to the level of new mining power that enters. | | Can you expand on this? | ArkanExplorer wrote: | All of the people currently mining Ethereum will switch | to mining other coins. | | But, the mining rewards for those other coins are | typically static. | | So you'll have a dramatically increased number of GPUs | chasing the same number of coins - which is going to | result in increased mining difficulty and reduced | profits, potentially dramatically reduced. | pavon wrote: | Unfortunately, NVIDIA already accidentally leaked a driver | with without those limitations within days of releasing those | cards. | | https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/nvidia- | accidenta... | ihuman wrote: | That driver was just for the 3060 LHR. The 3080, 3070 and | 3060 Ti LHR will require newer drivers. It's still possible | for NVIDIA to mess up and release a newer driver without | those limitations again, though. | pteraspidomorph wrote: | Unfortunately mining is only a small part of why GPUs have | been so expensive, but hopefully this will contribute to | making them cheaper in the long term. If they don't mess up | again. | josefresco wrote: | I get that (chip shortage, covid demand surge etc.), but | there's a clear distinction of availability between GPUs | that are suitable/unsuitable for mining. | selfhoster11 wrote: | Some of these earlier cards already have been jailbroken. | Ultimately, it's a question of whether it makes sense for | miners to sponsor a cracking effort vs the cost of buying the | more expensive cards outright. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-05-18 23:00 UTC)