4 ms·

If proof of work is being done during peak solar load times the effect on the environment is negligible.

kristianp 9y ago
No, mining has to be done 24 hours a day to be profitable.
freeflight 9y ago
It's not just the electricity, it's major wear and tear on lots of hardware with no real purpose. This get's worse the more different currencies there are and the more people are farming them. While I like the basic idea behind Bitcoin, I really don't like this development of "Let's invent a couple of dozen more of those!". It also shows the ugly face of how what we as human societies actually value. While I haven't compared any numbers, I'm pretty sure Folding@home or Seti@home can only dream of having the kind of computing power available to them that some of these cryptocurrencies manage to mobilize. You want my cycles to find a cure for cancer? Nah, I'll keep my cycles to myself. Using my cycles to make the imaginiary profits? Sweet, let's buy warehouses full of hardware!
- rothbardrand 9y ago
  You say "no real purpose" but what you mean is "a purpose I don't value". That's fine, don't do it. The problem comes when you think that people doing things you don't like is somehow wrong. People have attempted to make scientific computing good for proof of work-- GRIDCoin is an example. But it doesn't work for actually securing the network, due to the nature of how blockchains work. You're free to work or mine or do whatever you want and then donate that money to scientific research. But what makes you think you know better how I should spend my money? You don't even know how I'm spending my money.
  - freeflight 9y ago
    > The problem comes when you think that people doing things you don't like is somehow wrong. I should have clarified that more: As I said before I have no issue with the basic concept behind cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is a great thing and will hopefully do even greater things in the future. And of course, everybody is to free to do with their time and resources as they please, never suggested otherwise. What I have an issue with is how new currencies seem to be popping up like mushrooms because they've become the current "thing" to do if you want to make a quick buck. From the outside, it just looks like a bunch of pump and dump schemes, with no purpose besides offering a couple of early adopters the chance to make temporary huge profits, comparable to a digital Wall Street. Originally I imagined BC as the solution to all the exchange rate shenanigans and whatnot, have one global and digital currency for everybody. Instead, we are now forking currencies like software, I'm not sure I like the possible long-term ramifications of that. Do we really want a future with hundreds, if not thousands of different, and competing, cryptocurrencies? Is such a future even viable?
    - TheCondor 9y ago
      isnt that just competition? Whats wrong with that?
      - freeflight 9y ago
        Competition is not always the best approach, especially for a currency. I'd rather see a unified and simplified monetary system than "cryptocurrency wars" where vast amounts of "wealth" would just suddenly vanish into thin air, as a myriad of different currencies would struggle for relevance. It's not like we haven't learned these lessons before in the real world, we have, plenty of times. That's why it's so surprising how keen we seem to be on repeating them in a digital format for the sole sake of having yet another speculative vehicle from which we can deduct some imaginary "economic growth".
    - rothbardrand 9y ago
      Alts, like internet startups in the Dotcom era, fall into three categories: 1. Genuinely new ideas from clueless people who will fail (because they don't understand that distributed systems are hard, Satoshi made it look easy) 2. Genuinely new ideas from good devs that will succeed (extremely rare, I consider that Bitcoin is the only chain that meets that requirement for me, though some others might in the future) 3. Blatent schemes to try and grab money because there is huge interest. It's really hard to tell what category something is going to fall into... but the thing is, bitcoin has had massive returns and if you can produce a really good innovation, the impact on society and consequently the returns could be equally massive. So yes there is a lot of speculative money out there, but the only way to tell the good from the crap is to do your due diligence. For me, even if the good is %1 (and I think it's a bit less than that right now) it's ok.
  - lmm 9y ago
    Cryptocurrency "mining" consists of essentially burning money, by design (proof of work and all that). I don't have to know a lot about you to know that's a poor way to spend your money.
    - rothbardrand 9y ago
      It's a bad idea to spend $300 on electricity to get a currency worth $900?
- sumedh 9y ago
  > no real purpose That is a loaded statement. If you ask a monk whatever you are doing in life has no real purpose.

No, mining has to be done 24 hours a day to be profitable.

It's not just the electricity, it's major wear and tear on lots of hardware with no real purpose. This get's worse the more different currencies there are and the more people are farming them. While I like the basic idea behind Bitcoin, I really don't like this development of "Let's invent a couple of dozen more of those!". It also shows the ugly face of how what we as human societies actually value. While I haven't compared any numbers, I'm pretty sure Folding@home or Seti@home can only dream of having the kind of computing power available to them that some of these cryptocurrencies manage to mobilize. You want my cycles to find a cure for cancer? Nah, I'll keep my cycles to myself. Using my cycles to make the imaginiary profits? Sweet, let's buy warehouses full of hardware!

rothbardrand 9y ago
You say "no real purpose" but what you mean is "a purpose I don't value". That's fine, don't do it. The problem comes when you think that people doing things you don't like is somehow wrong. People have attempted to make scientific computing good for proof of work-- GRIDCoin is an example. But it doesn't work for actually securing the network, due to the nature of how blockchains work. You're free to work or mine or do whatever you want and then donate that money to scientific research. But what makes you think you know better how I should spend my money? You don't even know how I'm spending my money.
- freeflight 9y ago
  > The problem comes when you think that people doing things you don't like is somehow wrong. I should have clarified that more: As I said before I have no issue with the basic concept behind cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is a great thing and will hopefully do even greater things in the future. And of course, everybody is to free to do with their time and resources as they please, never suggested otherwise. What I have an issue with is how new currencies seem to be popping up like mushrooms because they've become the current "thing" to do if you want to make a quick buck. From the outside, it just looks like a bunch of pump and dump schemes, with no purpose besides offering a couple of early adopters the chance to make temporary huge profits, comparable to a digital Wall Street. Originally I imagined BC as the solution to all the exchange rate shenanigans and whatnot, have one global and digital currency for everybody. Instead, we are now forking currencies like software, I'm not sure I like the possible long-term ramifications of that. Do we really want a future with hundreds, if not thousands of different, and competing, cryptocurrencies? Is such a future even viable?
  - TheCondor 9y ago
    isnt that just competition? Whats wrong with that?
    - freeflight 9y ago
      Competition is not always the best approach, especially for a currency. I'd rather see a unified and simplified monetary system than "cryptocurrency wars" where vast amounts of "wealth" would just suddenly vanish into thin air, as a myriad of different currencies would struggle for relevance. It's not like we haven't learned these lessons before in the real world, we have, plenty of times. That's why it's so surprising how keen we seem to be on repeating them in a digital format for the sole sake of having yet another speculative vehicle from which we can deduct some imaginary "economic growth".
  - rothbardrand 9y ago
    Alts, like internet startups in the Dotcom era, fall into three categories: 1. Genuinely new ideas from clueless people who will fail (because they don't understand that distributed systems are hard, Satoshi made it look easy) 2. Genuinely new ideas from good devs that will succeed (extremely rare, I consider that Bitcoin is the only chain that meets that requirement for me, though some others might in the future) 3. Blatent schemes to try and grab money because there is huge interest. It's really hard to tell what category something is going to fall into... but the thing is, bitcoin has had massive returns and if you can produce a really good innovation, the impact on society and consequently the returns could be equally massive. So yes there is a lot of speculative money out there, but the only way to tell the good from the crap is to do your due diligence. For me, even if the good is %1 (and I think it's a bit less than that right now) it's ok.
- lmm 9y ago
  Cryptocurrency "mining" consists of essentially burning money, by design (proof of work and all that). I don't have to know a lot about you to know that's a poor way to spend your money.
  - rothbardrand 9y ago
    It's a bad idea to spend $300 on electricity to get a currency worth $900?
sumedh 9y ago
> no real purpose That is a loaded statement. If you ask a monk whatever you are doing in life has no real purpose.