6 ms·

This is definitely the waste of resources. A lottery to choose a block generator could be useful, e.g. PrimeCoin or PermaCoin(http://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/permaco

by kushti 11y ago

This is definitely the waste of resources. A lottery to choose a block generator could be useful, e.g. PrimeCoin or PermaCoin(http://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/permacoin.pdf http://cs.umd.edu/~amiller/permacoin.pdf). We are working to launch Scorex(https://github.com/ScorexProject/Scorex-Lagonaki https://github.com/ScorexProject/Scorex-Lagonaki) w. Permacoin testnet in coming days.

ghayes 11y ago
From the referenced document where OP says "No, this is not wasteful" [0]: "Miners currently use approximately only 0.0012% .. [and] economic modelling predicts miners will not account for more than 0.74% of the energy consumed by the world". Expending nearly 1% of all energy consumed by the world is an insanely large figure. How much hubris does it take to call this "not wasteful" on its face? [0] Miners currently use approximately only 0.0012%
- dustingetz 11y ago
  Well to make any reasonable comparison we need to see it at a human scale number like dollars per person per day or something otherwise it's just posturing and politics... Big numbers are always manipulated to serve one interest or another
  - placeybordeaux 11y ago
    To make a reasonable comparison you would actually need to look at the opportunity costs. This gets even harder as bitcoin mining operations frequently locate at locations which have extremely cheap power. Power which would have huge transmission loss when moving to individual's homes.
- mrb 11y ago
  The model I used to calculate 0.74% assumes Bitcoin's market cap is $1 trillion(!). We can all agree that IF the market cap gets this large, it will mean Bitcoin will have had a huge positive impact on society. Therefore it will have been worth it to spend 0.74% of the world's energy. Edit: I am puzzled by the downvotes. I would like to hear (and respond to) counterpoints if what I am saying is incredibly silly.
  - kansface 11y ago
    > We can all agree that IF the market cap gets this large, it will mean Bitcoin will have had a huge positive impact on society. What, why?! Even if that were the case, it doesn't follow that the good it does outweighs using 1% of all energy.
    - mrb 11y ago
      I will explain. Firstly, I think you are underestimating the societal impact that would have led a cryptocurrency to be worth $1 trillion. It would mean it has succeeded on a massive scale: foreign trade made more fluid thanks to Bitcoin's disregard of political borders, hundreds of millions of people using it to escape inflation/financial restrictions/etc (vs. today's few million users), millions of merchants accepting it (vs. today's 130 000 merchants). All Bitcoin would have to accomplish to justify using 0.X% of the world's energy is to increase the world GDP by 0.X%. Secondly, 0.74% is an upper bound. It assumes power costs of $0.01 per kWh (read section 2 at http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=82 http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=82) when actually the average power cost worldwide is 10x higher ($0.10/kWh). Maybe it will be 0.3% of the total energy. Maybe 0.1%. How low is low enough that you would consider it worthwhile?
      - PhilWright 11y ago
        There is no level of hash calculations that is acceptable. It is crazy to have a currency that requires this dumb make-work of hashing which results in CO2 emissions. We live in a world of dangerous climate change and Bitcoin users want us to expel CO2 into the atmosphere with every currency transaction. That is dumb and not sustainable.
        mrb 11y ago
        I actually address this point in my post: "Many/most miners use hydroelectric power because competition compels them to use cheap renewable energy instead of other polluting power sources such as coal power plants" examples: BitFury: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151211005837/en/BitFury-Launch-Energy-Efficient-Immersion-Cooling-Data https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151211005837/en/Bit... KnC: http://thenodepole.com/2015/06/04/kncminer-to-build-new-20mw-greenfield-datacenter-in-the-node-pole/ http://thenodepole.com/2015/06/04/kncminer-to-build-new-20mw... Therefore your worry about CO₂ emissions is misplaced.
- DickingAround 11y ago
  A better argument here is that we must compare it to the current banking system. Sum up the cost of supporting banks, bankers, bank failures, runs on currency, etc. and bitcoin would clearly a good deal efficiency-wise if it was our main currency.
  - u320 11y ago
    But banks provide credit which Bitcoin does not. Most of the problems with banks (bank failures etc) comes from the credit side, not the payments side.
    - DickingAround 11y ago
      At a glance, it might seem that simple. In more depth, people who try to hold money essentially don't have a place they can easily park and access it other than a bank. People get forced into a fractional reserve system. That fractional reserve system in turn needs a lot of extra work and systems behind it to function. Bitcoin is a way for people to keep and move money without being subject to either money printing or fractional reserve. So it is, in part, a replacement for that system.
  - tdees40 11y ago
    Banks and Bitcoin serve radically different purposes. (Try getting a mortgage from Bitcoin!) A more appropriate comparison would be the percentage of bank energy that goes to payment processing, which is probably pretty low.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      You should include the energy to print and mint notes and coins as well and the energy to make plastic cards.
    - Kinnard 11y ago
      What about all those air conditioned buildings with all those eating, breathing, commuting human beings everywhere? Bitcoin looks pretty competitive to me against that.
- jnbiche 11y ago
  I agree that Bitcoin's energy costs risk becoming ridiculously high, but general IT energy expenditures are currently 10% of the world's total, eclipsing aviation [1]. Bearing this in mind, using things like PHP, Python and Ruby to build massive web services also seems massively wasteful to me. I'm quite sure that compared to a lower level language like Go or C++, those languages use up an order of magnitude more energy. The energy difference between those two language groups almost certainly exceeds Bitcoin's total energy usage right now, and I don't see people moaning about this. I mean, build your prototype using one of those languages, but once you starting building a significant audience, switch over to C++, Go, or Rust, and use a fraction of the energy you use with Python or Ruby. 1. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/16/it_electricity_use_worse_than_you_thought/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/16/it_electricity_use_w...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Latty 11y ago
    It'd be cheaper to generate the energy cleanly than to spend the cost (development, opportunity, etc...) of developing such things in a lower level language, I'd imagine.
mrb 11y ago
"Definitively"? Have you read my counter-arguments here: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=82 http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=82 ?
wyager 11y ago
There is a difference between wasting and spending. It is impossible to get the security guarantees that Bitcoin affords without spending energy. That expense is the end goal of proof of work, not a side effect.
blencdr 11y ago
You are right on this one, bitcoin is a large an noneffective resource waste. Our world need to have ideas to make an energy transition, and bitcoin is based on energy waste, mainly produced by carbon resources. Our future world need energy, and we cannot afford burning real material to create a virtual money with no practical value, this is a nonsense.
- mrb 11y ago
  "mainly produced by carbon resources" No, many/most miners use hydropower. See next-to-last paragraph in section 1.
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    As hydropower is clearly the cleanest and cheapest source of electricity and would be used first in any location, bitcoin miners are essentially shifting other power consumers to carbon-based sources.
    - mrb 11y ago
      I don't think they are shifting other consumers. More and more often we have seen that large miners either build their own mini-power plant[1] or use excess hydro power in remote areas that would otherwise be unused[2]. [1] http://thenodepole.com/2015/06/04/kncminer-to-build-new-20mw-greenfield-datacenter-in-the-node-pole/ http://thenodepole.com/2015/06/04/kncminer-to-build-new-20mw... [2] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-unknown-giant-a-first-look-inside-bw-one-of-china-s-oldest-and-largest-miners-1444675310 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-unknown-giant-a-fir...

by kushti 11y ago

ghayes 11y ago

From the referenced document where OP says "No, this is not wasteful" [0]: "Miners currently use approximately only 0.0012% .. [and] economic modelling predicts miners will not account for more than 0.74% of the energy consumed by the world". Expending nearly 1% of all energy consumed by the world is an insanely large figure. How much hubris does it take to call this "not wasteful" on its face? [0] Miners currently use approximately only 0.0012%

dustingetz 11y ago
Well to make any reasonable comparison we need to see it at a human scale number like dollars per person per day or something otherwise it's just posturing and politics... Big numbers are always manipulated to serve one interest or another
- placeybordeaux 11y ago
  To make a reasonable comparison you would actually need to look at the opportunity costs. This gets even harder as bitcoin mining operations frequently locate at locations which have extremely cheap power. Power which would have huge transmission loss when moving to individual's homes.
mrb 11y ago
The model I used to calculate 0.74% assumes Bitcoin's market cap is $1 trillion(!). We can all agree that IF the market cap gets this large, it will mean Bitcoin will have had a huge positive impact on society. Therefore it will have been worth it to spend 0.74% of the world's energy. Edit: I am puzzled by the downvotes. I would like to hear (and respond to) counterpoints if what I am saying is incredibly silly.
- kansface 11y ago
  > We can all agree that IF the market cap gets this large, it will mean Bitcoin will have had a huge positive impact on society. What, why?! Even if that were the case, it doesn't follow that the good it does outweighs using 1% of all energy.
  - mrb 11y ago
    I will explain. Firstly, I think you are underestimating the societal impact that would have led a cryptocurrency to be worth $1 trillion. It would mean it has succeeded on a massive scale: foreign trade made more fluid thanks to Bitcoin's disregard of political borders, hundreds of millions of people using it to escape inflation/financial restrictions/etc (vs. today's few million users), millions of merchants accepting it (vs. today's 130 000 merchants). All Bitcoin would have to accomplish to justify using 0.X% of the world's energy is to increase the world GDP by 0.X%. Secondly, 0.74% is an upper bound. It assumes power costs of $0.01 per kWh (read section 2 at http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=82 http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=82) when actually the average power cost worldwide is 10x higher ($0.10/kWh). Maybe it will be 0.3% of the total energy. Maybe 0.1%. How low is low enough that you would consider it worthwhile?
    - PhilWright 11y ago
      There is no level of hash calculations that is acceptable. It is crazy to have a currency that requires this dumb make-work of hashing which results in CO2 emissions. We live in a world of dangerous climate change and Bitcoin users want us to expel CO2 into the atmosphere with every currency transaction. That is dumb and not sustainable.
      - mrb 11y ago
        I actually address this point in my post: "Many/most miners use hydroelectric power because competition compels them to use cheap renewable energy instead of other polluting power sources such as coal power plants" examples: BitFury: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151211005837/en/BitFury-Launch-Energy-Efficient-Immersion-Cooling-Data https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151211005837/en/Bit... KnC: http://thenodepole.com/2015/06/04/kncminer-to-build-new-20mw-greenfield-datacenter-in-the-node-pole/ http://thenodepole.com/2015/06/04/kncminer-to-build-new-20mw... Therefore your worry about CO₂ emissions is misplaced.
DickingAround 11y ago
A better argument here is that we must compare it to the current banking system. Sum up the cost of supporting banks, bankers, bank failures, runs on currency, etc. and bitcoin would clearly a good deal efficiency-wise if it was our main currency.
- u320 11y ago
  But banks provide credit which Bitcoin does not. Most of the problems with banks (bank failures etc) comes from the credit side, not the payments side.
  - DickingAround 11y ago
    At a glance, it might seem that simple. In more depth, people who try to hold money essentially don't have a place they can easily park and access it other than a bank. People get forced into a fractional reserve system. That fractional reserve system in turn needs a lot of extra work and systems behind it to function. Bitcoin is a way for people to keep and move money without being subject to either money printing or fractional reserve. So it is, in part, a replacement for that system.
- tdees40 11y ago
  Banks and Bitcoin serve radically different purposes. (Try getting a mortgage from Bitcoin!) A more appropriate comparison would be the percentage of bank energy that goes to payment processing, which is probably pretty low.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    You should include the energy to print and mint notes and coins as well and the energy to make plastic cards.
  - Kinnard 11y ago
    What about all those air conditioned buildings with all those eating, breathing, commuting human beings everywhere? Bitcoin looks pretty competitive to me against that.
jnbiche 11y ago
I agree that Bitcoin's energy costs risk becoming ridiculously high, but general IT energy expenditures are currently 10% of the world's total, eclipsing aviation [1]. Bearing this in mind, using things like PHP, Python and Ruby to build massive web services also seems massively wasteful to me. I'm quite sure that compared to a lower level language like Go or C++, those languages use up an order of magnitude more energy. The energy difference between those two language groups almost certainly exceeds Bitcoin's total energy usage right now, and I don't see people moaning about this. I mean, build your prototype using one of those languages, but once you starting building a significant audience, switch over to C++, Go, or Rust, and use a fraction of the energy you use with Python or Ruby. 1. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/16/it_electricity_use_worse_than_you_thought/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/16/it_electricity_use_w...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Latty 11y ago
  It'd be cheaper to generate the energy cleanly than to spend the cost (development, opportunity, etc...) of developing such things in a lower level language, I'd imagine.

mrb 11y ago

"Definitively"? Have you read my counter-arguments here: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=82 http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=82 ?

wyager 11y ago

There is a difference between wasting and spending. It is impossible to get the security guarantees that Bitcoin affords without spending energy. That expense is the end goal of proof of work, not a side effect.

blencdr 11y ago

You are right on this one, bitcoin is a large an noneffective resource waste. Our world need to have ideas to make an energy transition, and bitcoin is based on energy waste, mainly produced by carbon resources. Our future world need energy, and we cannot afford burning real material to create a virtual money with no practical value, this is a nonsense.

mrb 11y ago
"mainly produced by carbon resources" No, many/most miners use hydropower. See next-to-last paragraph in section 1.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  As hydropower is clearly the cleanest and cheapest source of electricity and would be used first in any location, bitcoin miners are essentially shifting other power consumers to carbon-based sources.
  - mrb 11y ago
    I don't think they are shifting other consumers. More and more often we have seen that large miners either build their own mini-power plant[1] or use excess hydro power in remote areas that would otherwise be unused[2]. [1] http://thenodepole.com/2015/06/04/kncminer-to-build-new-20mw-greenfield-datacenter-in-the-node-pole/ http://thenodepole.com/2015/06/04/kncminer-to-build-new-20mw... [2] https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-unknown-giant-a-first-look-inside-bw-one-of-china-s-oldest-and-largest-miners-1444675310 https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/the-unknown-giant-a-fir...