12 ms·

A cryptocurrency enthusiast would tell you that the energy consumed is not "wasted" because it is necessary to secure the block chain. Personally I find this a

A cryptocurrency enthusiast would tell you that the energy consumed is not "wasted" because it is necessary to secure the block chain. Personally I find this argument unconvincing and somewhat tautological. 1) Surely we can come up with a less wasteful solution to this and 2) why should we assume that securing the block chain is a actually good use for the energy spent? Especially if you consider that the process of "mining" is literally computing hashes over and over again until you find the right nonce that meets some arbitrary criteria, it's hard to see this process as anything except wasting massive amounts of energy.

jstanley 9y ago
> 1) Surely we can come up with a less wasteful solution to this 10 years ago people would have told you there is no possible solution to this. Proof-of-work cryptocurrency is a tremendous breakthrough. It will certainly be surpassed one day, but it's currently our best available option for a system of money.
- canoebuilder 9y ago
  What? Why isn't everyone using "our best available option"? What are the benefits of thousands of different systems keeping a record of every single transaction, and how is this not a hindrance to widespread use of our best available option? Crypto-currencies have utility and uses but they are rather niche and specialized. Crypto-currencies aren't a mass market system. And they're not structured in a way that they can be.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - ebcode 9y ago
    One benefit of having a distributed ledger (your thousands of different systems) is that it decentralizes trust. With fiat currency, you have to trust the government (or private company, in the case of the U.S.A.) that issues it, not to print so much that they debase it. I have no trust in my government, or fellow private corporations, given what I've been through. Bitcoin, on the other hand, well, at least I can read the source code and compile the executable myself. Given a choice between trusting a person/corporation and trusting a mathematical equation, I would rather place my trust in the mathematics. The internet is a mass market system, and it was designed with biological growth in mind. Bitcoin is built on top of the internet. So I don't see why you would think it couldn't see widespread adoption. It's just another program.
    - kahnpro 9y ago
      It's incredibly foolish to think you're only trusting mathematics. All you've done is shift your trust to the authoring process of the Bitcoin clients and to the majority of the miners. Authoring and distributing the clients, and determining the majority of clients and the majority of mining power, is still a social and political problem driven by human greed.
      - ebcode 9y ago
        >It's incredibly foolish to think you're only trusting mathematics. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose I'm guilty of "idealizing" my argument. Still, if the Bitcoin client could somehow be "written in stone", and everyone knew the protocols and source code could not be modified, I think it would be a safer bet to place my trust in a globally distributed network of selfish individuals, than to place it in a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires.
    - tigershark 9y ago
      Trusting bitcoin you are trusting the Chinese miners that have the majority of the hashing power. Bitcoin won't EVER be widespread if his whole network can process a mere 7 transactions per second (Wasting a huge amount of energy).
    - nodamage 9y ago
      > Given a choice between trusting a person/corporation and trusting a mathematical equation, I would rather place my trust in the mathematics. This comes across as incredibly naive. Just consider the whole Segwit2x controversy and think about exactly who controls the future of Bitcoin. You've just shifted your trust to a different group of people.
mrb 9y ago
1) No there is no other way. (An alternative, proof-of-stake, is still an active research area. Even Ethereum abandoned the idea of completely switching away from proof-of-work because they realized PoS isn't completely workable.) 2) Because a permission-less censorship-resistant decentralized financial system has the potential to truly improve society, hence worth spending energy on it. I have presented multiple arguments why (Bitcoin) mining is not wasteful here: http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/
- Jabanga 9y ago
  >Even Ethereum abandoned the idea of completely switching away from proof-of-work because they realized PoS isn't completely workable No it didn't. I follow Ethereum development closely and I know for a fact that's absolutely untrue. I'm not sure why you're misleading people about this.
  - Evelyn533 9y ago
    @Loise, you make $27h...good for you! I make up to $85h working from home. My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45h to $85h…heres a good example of what i'm doing, ----------------->>http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k
  - fghtr 9y ago
    But you both did not give any links...
  - gus_massa 9y ago
    I think they didn't abandon the idea, but until they have a working prototype it's just a idea. Nobody is sure if it's possible to use in the real word, were many people will try to steal a few million dollars if they can.
  - mrb 9y ago
    You are right, I should have said "temporarily" not "completely". They abandoned the idea of switching to 100% PoS right away, and instead are trying to work on a hybrid PoS/PoW. Source: https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/851503370250661889 https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/851503370250661889 (100% PoS remains the ideal goal, but they have been unable to work it out yet)
KVFinn 9y ago
>A cryptocurrency enthusiast would tell you that the energy consumed is not "wasted" because it is necessary to secure the block chain. Note that this is zero-sum. If a device is invented tomorrow that is 100x more efficient per dollar/watt to mine, the cost to 'secure the blockchain' remains the same because people will just buy 100x more computing power for the same investment and the difficulty ramps up to compensate.
- IanCal 9y ago
  This is not correct unless you factor in the hardware cost. If you changed graphics cards to use 0.1% of their current power, then miners would not immediately buy 1000 times more graphics cards.
  - keredson 9y ago
    you're right about the detail of his point (people won't buy 100x just because a 100x increase in efficiency), but the point he was trying to make is correct. given a fixed global investment, a 100x increase in efficiency won't reduce costs. it will just increase the difficulty level to compensate.
    - IanCal 9y ago
      But it does have an impact on the energy use. If the energy efficiency goes up 100x and people aren't using 100x as many machines then the overall energy usage drops.
      - KVFinn 9y ago
        >But it does have an impact on the energy use. If the energy efficiency goes up 100x and people aren't using 100x as many machines then the overall energy usage drops. If there really was an overnight 100x improvement there would be a lot of lag, but in the long run the cost is mostly the energy. So if efficiency slowly goes up 100x people will generally use 100x the computing power, and use the same overall energy. There's some difference because of the ratio of silicon investment to wattage cost over time, but that's the overall shape of it.
Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
If you knew the technical details of blockchains, you would not think that. And yes, the process IS much more than wasing massive amounts of energy. > 1) Surely we can come up with a less wasteful solution to this You are welcome to try. If you do come up with a less waisful solution you will be able to create your own altcoin and will make billions worth of dollars on it. Some very smart people have tried in the past and are still trying.
- stOneskull 9y ago
  proof of stake
- cwyers 9y ago
  There's already a less wasteful solution, it's called fiat money.
  - celticninja 9y ago
    That's because you are not actually considering the electricity usage of fiat money at all.
    - cwyers 9y ago
      Banks aren't setting themselves on fire in the course of operation: http://gizmodo.com/a-huge-fire-took-out-a-bitcoin-mining-operation-1655981855 http://gizmodo.com/a-huge-fire-took-out-a-bitcoin-mining-ope... Because banks aren't setting themselves up in places based on the electricty cost. And shoving rackmount servers in close proximity and underventilating them. Even huge fintech operations aren't chasing cheap power at the exclusion of other concerns. Banks do not use the kind of electricity that cryptocurrency uses, when you control for the volume of usage of each.
      - celticninja 9y ago
        So from a sample size of 1 you think all miners are setting g themselves on fire?
meric 9y ago
We could be mining gold instead with the energy.
angus-prune 9y ago
It is worth comparing this against the cost of minting money. A brief search showed that the US mint used 694,462.4 gigajoules in 2011[1] (~0.2Twh). The US is ~25% of world GDP, so lets times this by 4 for a naive cost of minting across the whole world. This gives a cost of ~1Twh annually for minting the entire world's supply of money, with a total Gross world product of ~$80 trillion[2]. Bitcoin is using ~1.3Twh[3] for a market cap of ~$35 billion[4]. Overall this means that bitcoins are ~3000x less efficient than physical money. After writing this I've realised I should perhaps limit to the cash based economy. The amount of US dollars in circulation is ~$1.3 trillion[5]. This gives a slightly better ratio of 222x less efficient. Bitcoin is 222 times less efficient than a physical system of metal coins and paper/fabric/plastic. [1] http://www.designlife-cycle.com/us-penny/ http://www.designlife-cycle.com/us-penny/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product [3] http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ [4] https://coinmarketcap.com/ https://coinmarketcap.com/ [5] https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html
- whiskers08xmt 9y ago
  This is not entirely true, as cash requires energy after it's been minted. Money transport, cashiers and gold old fashioned vaults all require energy. With that being said, PoW is definitely wasteful, and for crypto-currency to be taken serious on the world stage, another form of consensus algorithm is required. Personally I'm partial to Proof of Stake[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism
  - omellet 9y ago
    Don't cryptocurrency transactions take a lot more time & energy than, say, a credit card transaction?
    - lawless123 9y ago
      Yes, but it sounds cooler!
akhatri_aus 9y ago
As with anything based on the enforcement/legal sector there is no economic productivity.
colordrops 9y ago
> 1) Surely we can come up with a less wasteful solution to this and No one has found a solution yet that is as secure as proof of work, so this point is moot until then. > 2) why should we assume that securing the block chain is a actually good use for the energy spent? Who is this "we" you speak of? The energy is being paid for and the market demand demonstrates that it is a good use.
- MereInterest 9y ago
  > Who is this "we" you speak of? The energy is being paid for and the market demand demonstrates that it is a good use. This argument is nothing but an appeal to the majority. I could equivalently say that the existence of spam emails shows that spam emails are good for society. After all, spammers have paid for the electricity and bandwidth to send spam, and the market demand demonstrates that it is a good use. Market demand is a useful tool for measuring the current state, not for predicting an ideal state.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > No one has found a solution yet that is as secure as proof of work, so this point is moot until then. The point isn't moot. The point is that maybe we should stop pushing this tech forward until a less wasteful securing process can be developed. > Who is this "we" you speak of? This comes up often, and the answer is usually the same: that "we" are the people who consider the society they live in as something to contribute to and grow, and not as an exploitable resource to parasite on. > The energy is being paid for and the market demand demonstrates that it is a good use. Market demand only demonstrates that there are some people who are willing to pay money for this. Not that it's good or useful (see the spam example of sibling's comment). This is true especially if the thing is paying for itself.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    > The point is that maybe we should stop pushing this tech forward until a less wasteful securing process can be developed. We can't stop using hydrocarbons even though it may mean the end of civilization. To think that people will stop building cryptocurrencies due to environmental concerns is absurd in the extreme. It's like asking people to stop masturbating. It will NEVER happen. It's a fantasy. I'm not saying you aren't right - the energy expenditure is also absurd, but there is no way this will ever stop. People won't stop building and using them, and there's no way governments will make laws to ban them, so the conversation is honestly a bit naive and ridiculous.
freddref 9y ago
We might not be able to avoid proof of work, but we could make the work useful in some other way. Primecoin is an example of this, where the mining process produces prime numbers which can be useful for.. something?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Fr0styMatt88 9y ago
> Especially if you consider that the process of "mining" is literally computing hashes over and over again until you find the right nonce that meets some arbitrary criteria, it's hard to see this process as anything except wasting massive amounts of energy. I think this wording obscures why the mining process gives the network trustworthiness. You are changing the nonce over and over again until the HASH of the block meets some criteria. For example, your hash is below some value (it starts with a certain number of zeroes). This is important. It's important because you can't 'fake' the work. The only physically possible way to come up with a block that has a conforming hash is to change the nonce and run the hashing algorithm and repeat this until your hash matches the criteria. There's no way I can know the nonce I need to use without running the hashing algorithm. Hence, if I present a block that hashes to a conforming value (you don't just take my word for it, you run the hashing algorithm on the block yourself to independently verify the work), you know that I've invested time and electricity (tangible, real-world things) in the creation of that conforming block. Alone this doesn't seem like much, but the time and energy limitations it imposes gives a blockchain properties that make data more 'immutable' the longer it is stored in the chain by making it computationally more expensive to change data further back in time from the most recent block in the chain and makes it computationally expensive for a single bad actor to change past data that nodes in the network have 'agreed' upon. This computational expense is important when combined with the other rules that a node uses when receiving a new block and trying to independently determine that the block is valid and should be treated by that node as 'truth'. The trustworthiness of the blockchain is an emergent network effect. It's not provided or enabled by one single thing, but by many things all contributing at the same time. Proof-of-work is just one small piece of a much larger system. For example, you also need to consider what other rules make proof-of-work useful in the system, such as the rule that a node must accept a chain with more work in it as more truthful than one with less work (hopefully I'm wording that somewhat right!). Saying 'the miners provide security by hashing' is a massive oversimplification of what's going on. It's very much a sum-of-all-the-parts thing. I found this helpful in particularly driving this process as a whole home: https://anders.com/blockchain/ https://anders.com/blockchain/ I'm still really getting my head around blockchain itself, so if I'm way off base on anything in my understanding here I'm happy to be corrected :) As I understand it, the challenging question is - is there something else we can use that's as independently verifiable as proof-of-work that's more energy efficient? What independent verification do we give up if we do choose something that's less energy consuming (but maybe less 'provable')?
dalore 9y ago
You could in theory create a centralised electronic currency with all the hashes computed. But then how would you distribute it? Chicken and the egg. How do you get people to use your currency if you have all of it? Do you just give it out to people? But what system. If you're giving it away it has no value. It cost you nothing to create it. etc. Mining also solves the distribution and creation of value problem. People won't use your currency unless it has value. To have value it needs to have a market to use it. To have a market you need people using it. Mining creates an incentive to create it since it has some value. And mining means the currency is distributed to people who create value for the system.
keredson 9y ago
I've had this thought too, but the counter argument is gold. Spending millions in fuel to dig up chunks of gold, just to go "re-bury" them in a bank vault somewhere is an equally appalling, use of the world's energy resources, but that hasn't stopped it from being a profitable venture for thousands of years.
my_ghola 9y ago
There was a coin called Primecoin that looked for prime numbers rather than useless hashes. It also went up in the last few months and is going down now like the rest.

jstanley 9y ago

> 1) Surely we can come up with a less wasteful solution to this 10 years ago people would have told you there is no possible solution to this. Proof-of-work cryptocurrency is a tremendous breakthrough. It will certainly be surpassed one day, but it's currently our best available option for a system of money.

canoebuilder 9y ago
What? Why isn't everyone using "our best available option"? What are the benefits of thousands of different systems keeping a record of every single transaction, and how is this not a hindrance to widespread use of our best available option? Crypto-currencies have utility and uses but they are rather niche and specialized. Crypto-currencies aren't a mass market system. And they're not structured in a way that they can be.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ebcode 9y ago
  One benefit of having a distributed ledger (your thousands of different systems) is that it decentralizes trust. With fiat currency, you have to trust the government (or private company, in the case of the U.S.A.) that issues it, not to print so much that they debase it. I have no trust in my government, or fellow private corporations, given what I've been through. Bitcoin, on the other hand, well, at least I can read the source code and compile the executable myself. Given a choice between trusting a person/corporation and trusting a mathematical equation, I would rather place my trust in the mathematics. The internet is a mass market system, and it was designed with biological growth in mind. Bitcoin is built on top of the internet. So I don't see why you would think it couldn't see widespread adoption. It's just another program.
  - kahnpro 9y ago
    It's incredibly foolish to think you're only trusting mathematics. All you've done is shift your trust to the authoring process of the Bitcoin clients and to the majority of the miners. Authoring and distributing the clients, and determining the majority of clients and the majority of mining power, is still a social and political problem driven by human greed.
    - ebcode 9y ago
      >It's incredibly foolish to think you're only trusting mathematics. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose I'm guilty of "idealizing" my argument. Still, if the Bitcoin client could somehow be "written in stone", and everyone knew the protocols and source code could not be modified, I think it would be a safer bet to place my trust in a globally distributed network of selfish individuals, than to place it in a loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires.
  - tigershark 9y ago
    Trusting bitcoin you are trusting the Chinese miners that have the majority of the hashing power. Bitcoin won't EVER be widespread if his whole network can process a mere 7 transactions per second (Wasting a huge amount of energy).
  - nodamage 9y ago
    > Given a choice between trusting a person/corporation and trusting a mathematical equation, I would rather place my trust in the mathematics. This comes across as incredibly naive. Just consider the whole Segwit2x controversy and think about exactly who controls the future of Bitcoin. You've just shifted your trust to a different group of people.

mrb 9y ago

1) No there is no other way. (An alternative, proof-of-stake, is still an active research area. Even Ethereum abandoned the idea of completely switching away from proof-of-work because they realized PoS isn't completely workable.) 2) Because a permission-less censorship-resistant decentralized financial system has the potential to truly improve society, hence worth spending energy on it. I have presented multiple arguments why (Bitcoin) mining is not wasteful here: http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/

Jabanga 9y ago
>Even Ethereum abandoned the idea of completely switching away from proof-of-work because they realized PoS isn't completely workable No it didn't. I follow Ethereum development closely and I know for a fact that's absolutely untrue. I'm not sure why you're misleading people about this.
- Evelyn533 9y ago
  @Loise, you make $27h...good for you! I make up to $85h working from home. My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45h to $85h…heres a good example of what i'm doing, ----------------->>http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k http://mcaf.ee/4ngo1k
- fghtr 9y ago
  But you both did not give any links...
- gus_massa 9y ago
  I think they didn't abandon the idea, but until they have a working prototype it's just a idea. Nobody is sure if it's possible to use in the real word, were many people will try to steal a few million dollars if they can.
- mrb 9y ago
  You are right, I should have said "temporarily" not "completely". They abandoned the idea of switching to 100% PoS right away, and instead are trying to work on a hybrid PoS/PoW. Source: https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/851503370250661889 https://twitter.com/vitalikbuterin/status/851503370250661889 (100% PoS remains the ideal goal, but they have been unable to work it out yet)

KVFinn 9y ago

>A cryptocurrency enthusiast would tell you that the energy consumed is not "wasted" because it is necessary to secure the block chain. Note that this is zero-sum. If a device is invented tomorrow that is 100x more efficient per dollar/watt to mine, the cost to 'secure the blockchain' remains the same because people will just buy 100x more computing power for the same investment and the difficulty ramps up to compensate.

IanCal 9y ago
This is not correct unless you factor in the hardware cost. If you changed graphics cards to use 0.1% of their current power, then miners would not immediately buy 1000 times more graphics cards.
- keredson 9y ago
  you're right about the detail of his point (people won't buy 100x just because a 100x increase in efficiency), but the point he was trying to make is correct. given a fixed global investment, a 100x increase in efficiency won't reduce costs. it will just increase the difficulty level to compensate.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    But it does have an impact on the energy use. If the energy efficiency goes up 100x and people aren't using 100x as many machines then the overall energy usage drops.
    - KVFinn 9y ago
      >But it does have an impact on the energy use. If the energy efficiency goes up 100x and people aren't using 100x as many machines then the overall energy usage drops. If there really was an overnight 100x improvement there would be a lot of lag, but in the long run the cost is mostly the energy. So if efficiency slowly goes up 100x people will generally use 100x the computing power, and use the same overall energy. There's some difference because of the ratio of silicon investment to wattage cost over time, but that's the overall shape of it.

Capt-RogerOver 9y ago

If you knew the technical details of blockchains, you would not think that. And yes, the process IS much more than wasing massive amounts of energy. > 1) Surely we can come up with a less wasteful solution to this You are welcome to try. If you do come up with a less waisful solution you will be able to create your own altcoin and will make billions worth of dollars on it. Some very smart people have tried in the past and are still trying.

stOneskull 9y ago
proof of stake
cwyers 9y ago
There's already a less wasteful solution, it's called fiat money.
- celticninja 9y ago
  That's because you are not actually considering the electricity usage of fiat money at all.
  - cwyers 9y ago
    Banks aren't setting themselves on fire in the course of operation: http://gizmodo.com/a-huge-fire-took-out-a-bitcoin-mining-operation-1655981855 http://gizmodo.com/a-huge-fire-took-out-a-bitcoin-mining-ope... Because banks aren't setting themselves up in places based on the electricty cost. And shoving rackmount servers in close proximity and underventilating them. Even huge fintech operations aren't chasing cheap power at the exclusion of other concerns. Banks do not use the kind of electricity that cryptocurrency uses, when you control for the volume of usage of each.
    - celticninja 9y ago
      So from a sample size of 1 you think all miners are setting g themselves on fire?

meric 9y ago

We could be mining gold instead with the energy.

angus-prune 9y ago

It is worth comparing this against the cost of minting money. A brief search showed that the US mint used 694,462.4 gigajoules in 2011[1] (~0.2Twh). The US is ~25% of world GDP, so lets times this by 4 for a naive cost of minting across the whole world. This gives a cost of ~1Twh annually for minting the entire world's supply of money, with a total Gross world product of ~$80 trillion[2]. Bitcoin is using ~1.3Twh[3] for a market cap of ~$35 billion[4]. Overall this means that bitcoins are ~3000x less efficient than physical money. After writing this I've realised I should perhaps limit to the cash based economy. The amount of US dollars in circulation is ~$1.3 trillion[5]. This gives a slightly better ratio of 222x less efficient. Bitcoin is 222 times less efficient than a physical system of metal coins and paper/fabric/plastic. [1] http://www.designlife-cycle.com/us-penny/ http://www.designlife-cycle.com/us-penny/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_world_product [3] http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ [4] https://coinmarketcap.com/ https://coinmarketcap.com/ [5] https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html

whiskers08xmt 9y ago
This is not entirely true, as cash requires energy after it's been minted. Money transport, cashiers and gold old fashioned vaults all require energy. With that being said, PoW is definitely wasteful, and for crypto-currency to be taken serious on the world stage, another form of consensus algorithm is required. Personally I'm partial to Proof of Stake[0]. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake#Criticism
- omellet 9y ago
  Don't cryptocurrency transactions take a lot more time & energy than, say, a credit card transaction?
  - lawless123 9y ago
    Yes, but it sounds cooler!

akhatri_aus 9y ago

As with anything based on the enforcement/legal sector there is no economic productivity.

colordrops 9y ago

> 1) Surely we can come up with a less wasteful solution to this and No one has found a solution yet that is as secure as proof of work, so this point is moot until then. > 2) why should we assume that securing the block chain is a actually good use for the energy spent? Who is this "we" you speak of? The energy is being paid for and the market demand demonstrates that it is a good use.

MereInterest 9y ago
> Who is this "we" you speak of? The energy is being paid for and the market demand demonstrates that it is a good use. This argument is nothing but an appeal to the majority. I could equivalently say that the existence of spam emails shows that spam emails are good for society. After all, spammers have paid for the electricity and bandwidth to send spam, and the market demand demonstrates that it is a good use. Market demand is a useful tool for measuring the current state, not for predicting an ideal state.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> No one has found a solution yet that is as secure as proof of work, so this point is moot until then. The point isn't moot. The point is that maybe we should stop pushing this tech forward until a less wasteful securing process can be developed. > Who is this "we" you speak of? This comes up often, and the answer is usually the same: that "we" are the people who consider the society they live in as something to contribute to and grow, and not as an exploitable resource to parasite on. > The energy is being paid for and the market demand demonstrates that it is a good use. Market demand only demonstrates that there are some people who are willing to pay money for this. Not that it's good or useful (see the spam example of sibling's comment). This is true especially if the thing is paying for itself.
- colordrops 9y ago
  > The point is that maybe we should stop pushing this tech forward until a less wasteful securing process can be developed. We can't stop using hydrocarbons even though it may mean the end of civilization. To think that people will stop building cryptocurrencies due to environmental concerns is absurd in the extreme. It's like asking people to stop masturbating. It will NEVER happen. It's a fantasy. I'm not saying you aren't right - the energy expenditure is also absurd, but there is no way this will ever stop. People won't stop building and using them, and there's no way governments will make laws to ban them, so the conversation is honestly a bit naive and ridiculous.

freddref 9y ago

We might not be able to avoid proof of work, but we could make the work useful in some other way. Primecoin is an example of this, where the mining process produces prime numbers which can be useful for.. something?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Fr0styMatt88 9y ago

> Especially if you consider that the process of "mining" is literally computing hashes over and over again until you find the right nonce that meets some arbitrary criteria, it's hard to see this process as anything except wasting massive amounts of energy. I think this wording obscures why the mining process gives the network trustworthiness. You are changing the nonce over and over again until the HASH of the block meets some criteria. For example, your hash is below some value (it starts with a certain number of zeroes). This is important. It's important because you can't 'fake' the work. The only physically possible way to come up with a block that has a conforming hash is to change the nonce and run the hashing algorithm and repeat this until your hash matches the criteria. There's no way I can know the nonce I need to use without running the hashing algorithm. Hence, if I present a block that hashes to a conforming value (you don't just take my word for it, you run the hashing algorithm on the block yourself to independently verify the work), you know that I've invested time and electricity (tangible, real-world things) in the creation of that conforming block. Alone this doesn't seem like much, but the time and energy limitations it imposes gives a blockchain properties that make data more 'immutable' the longer it is stored in the chain by making it computationally more expensive to change data further back in time from the most recent block in the chain and makes it computationally expensive for a single bad actor to change past data that nodes in the network have 'agreed' upon. This computational expense is important when combined with the other rules that a node uses when receiving a new block and trying to independently determine that the block is valid and should be treated by that node as 'truth'. The trustworthiness of the blockchain is an emergent network effect. It's not provided or enabled by one single thing, but by many things all contributing at the same time. Proof-of-work is just one small piece of a much larger system. For example, you also need to consider what other rules make proof-of-work useful in the system, such as the rule that a node must accept a chain with more work in it as more truthful than one with less work (hopefully I'm wording that somewhat right!). Saying 'the miners provide security by hashing' is a massive oversimplification of what's going on. It's very much a sum-of-all-the-parts thing. I found this helpful in particularly driving this process as a whole home: https://anders.com/blockchain/ https://anders.com/blockchain/ I'm still really getting my head around blockchain itself, so if I'm way off base on anything in my understanding here I'm happy to be corrected :) As I understand it, the challenging question is - is there something else we can use that's as independently verifiable as proof-of-work that's more energy efficient? What independent verification do we give up if we do choose something that's less energy consuming (but maybe less 'provable')?

dalore 9y ago

You could in theory create a centralised electronic currency with all the hashes computed. But then how would you distribute it? Chicken and the egg. How do you get people to use your currency if you have all of it? Do you just give it out to people? But what system. If you're giving it away it has no value. It cost you nothing to create it. etc. Mining also solves the distribution and creation of value problem. People won't use your currency unless it has value. To have value it needs to have a market to use it. To have a market you need people using it. Mining creates an incentive to create it since it has some value. And mining means the currency is distributed to people who create value for the system.

keredson 9y ago

I've had this thought too, but the counter argument is gold. Spending millions in fuel to dig up chunks of gold, just to go "re-bury" them in a bank vault somewhere is an equally appalling, use of the world's energy resources, but that hasn't stopped it from being a profitable venture for thousands of years.

my_ghola 9y ago

There was a coin called Primecoin that looked for prime numbers rather than useless hashes. It also went up in the last few months and is going down now like the rest.