6 ms·

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this

The most powerful supercomputer in the world reaches 143 petaflops, bitcoin network in comparison reaches 80704290.84 Petaflops. Granted that a majority of this computing power is in the form of custom ASIC's, but the figure is really staggering. And all of the 80704290.84 Petaflops, consume 73.12 TWh to repeatedly calculate SHA256 ! What could be the world's most powerful network does absolutely nothing but crunch hashes billions of times to discard almost all of the results anyway. Sheer waste of computing power.

foepys 7y ago
That's like saying a water bottle factory has only an output of N water bottles per day while the Three Gorges Dam can output N million liters of water a day with the difference that the Three Gorges Dam actually produces something useful, electricity, while doing so. Just because it's a higher number, it doesn't mean it's equally useful.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  It's more like instead of using the Three Gorges Dam to generate power you use the giant flow of water to fill 7 water bottles per second and divert the rest to dry up in a nearby salt flat, citing the renewability of the solution.
- dx034 7y ago
  So supercomputers produce nothing useful but the bitcoin network does? In the long term I'm not sure we gained anything so far by all the energy spent on bitcoins. Some people got richer, some got poorer but I've yet to see any benefits for society from bitcoin.
antpls 7y ago
Maybe there are more values in investing into SHA256 hardware other than Bitcoin. That's 80704290.84 petaflops dedicated to break the SHA256 algorithm (finding a duplicate). Finding such duplicate could advance knowledge, mathematics, cyber security, society, etc
the_svd_doctor 7y ago
Yes but the bitcoin network computers don't _really_ coorperate (well they do, with a bandwidth of the order of 2MB/15mins), unlike supercomputers, so hard to compare. But yes, lots of waste.
sharpneli 7y ago
This is a bit of an iffy comparison. The bitcoin network asics reach exactly 0 petaflops. Why? Because they cannot do any floating point operations. They can literally do just SHA256 hashes, nothing else. The "worlds most powerful network" simply cannot do anything else than this. It's effectively just an expensive set of electrical heaters.
reportgunner 7y ago
Big number scary. Orange coin bad!
- dx034 7y ago
  For the environment it certainly is.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  If this is the level of intellectualism I can expect from the Bitcoin community the power consumption is starting to make sense!
  - reportgunner 7y ago
    Hey hey hey, tune down the constructive criticism!
mrb 7y ago
It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed. There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties. Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is correct after a network split. There are many other unsolved problems. That's why Ethereum is years behind schedule in designing and deploying PoS. Replacing PoW with a useful algorithm (eg. protein folding) loses decentralization (a central trusted authority must verify/sample who performs the work correctly). Trust-based systems (Stellar, Libra) lose censorship-resistance. A "dumb" PoW is literally the only practical solution. If the social benefits of a cryptocurrency are worth the computational power, and if PoW is the only technical solution to implement it, then by definition PoW isn't wasteful.
- ackbar03 7y ago
  Yes but for what? Is this proof of stake worth how many dollars spent in energy consumption?
- danmaz74 7y ago
  If the only way to have a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency is to waste an inordinate amount of energy and increase our global warming and pollution problems, then we'll have to do without that kind of digital currency. It's a matter of priorities.
  - mrb 7y ago
    "inordinate amount of energy" It's comparable to what a single hydro dam like the Three Gorges Dam can produce. Don't fall prey to the scary comparisons BECI employs to mislead its readers. Global warming is critical, but there are other energy wasters much, much bigger than Bitcoin miners. Besides, as it's been said many times, miners tend to use renewables since they have become cheaper than fossil fuel power plants. A recent paper by Stoll et al. estimated CO2 emissions as being comparable to what a single city like Las Vegas emits: https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1139439068570193921 https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/113943906857019392...
agumonkey 7y ago
Isn't it the idea behind some other kinds of blockchain ? computing things other than hashes so that you get currency and results ?
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
So many times this argument comes up and every time I am amazed at how ignorant it seems to me. But it is very hard to discuss... Can't we all just agree that what is a valuable use of someones watts or petahashes per second is a subjective choice? That people are free to value their resources as they see fit? You personally might not value securing Bitcoin network, but many other people find it valueable and it is perfectly fine in a free country to allow them do what they please if you are similarly allowed to do what you please (no one forces you to buy Bitcoin miners)?
- ben_w 7y ago
  No, we can’t agree on that. The problem is the impact these things have on the rest of us when we ourselves have no interest in bitcoin. If bitcoin existed purely inside a virtual world — say, if coin miners were a virtual good that WoW players could buy which made WoW money appear in their inventory according to similar rules but without the actual hard work of computing anything beyond a lightweight O(num_players) random number generator on the server, then it stops being anyone else’s problem.
  - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
    Are my christmas lights that I put on during winter also everyone else's problem because they waste energy (that I bought with my own money)? Are you going to get into my business there as well and tell me what I can and cannot spend my resources on, because you claim that they have an "impact on you and you have no interest in them"? I am pretty sure that the best consensus the western world has come up with is that if there are any externalities, they can simply be taxed in like for example a carbon tax. But telling other people what they should and should not find valueable as if you have some sort of ultimate authority on knowing what is valueable, well, I hope you can already see what is wrong with that. Value is subjective. As in, other people have a right to decide for themselves.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      > Are my christmas lights that I put on during winter also everyone else's problem because they waste energy (that I bought with my own money)? Yes but too little to bother about. Transportation and inefficient heat management are the only common ones that matter. > they can simply be taxed in like for example a carbon tax On that we agree. I believe car fuel is taxed appropriately in the UK, but in general these externalities are not properly accounted for. If they were, it would be a different matter, but they’re not.

foepys 7y ago

That's like saying a water bottle factory has only an output of N water bottles per day while the Three Gorges Dam can output N million liters of water a day with the difference that the Three Gorges Dam actually produces something useful, electricity, while doing so. Just because it's a higher number, it doesn't mean it's equally useful.

arcticbull 7y ago
It's more like instead of using the Three Gorges Dam to generate power you use the giant flow of water to fill 7 water bottles per second and divert the rest to dry up in a nearby salt flat, citing the renewability of the solution.
dx034 7y ago
So supercomputers produce nothing useful but the bitcoin network does? In the long term I'm not sure we gained anything so far by all the energy spent on bitcoins. Some people got richer, some got poorer but I've yet to see any benefits for society from bitcoin.

antpls 7y ago

Maybe there are more values in investing into SHA256 hardware other than Bitcoin. That's 80704290.84 petaflops dedicated to break the SHA256 algorithm (finding a duplicate). Finding such duplicate could advance knowledge, mathematics, cyber security, society, etc

the_svd_doctor 7y ago

Yes but the bitcoin network computers don't _really_ coorperate (well they do, with a bandwidth of the order of 2MB/15mins), unlike supercomputers, so hard to compare. But yes, lots of waste.

sharpneli 7y ago

This is a bit of an iffy comparison. The bitcoin network asics reach exactly 0 petaflops. Why? Because they cannot do any floating point operations. They can literally do just SHA256 hashes, nothing else. The "worlds most powerful network" simply cannot do anything else than this. It's effectively just an expensive set of electrical heaters.

reportgunner 7y ago

Big number scary. Orange coin bad!

dx034 7y ago
For the environment it certainly is.
arcticbull 7y ago
If this is the level of intellectualism I can expect from the Bitcoin community the power consumption is starting to make sense!
- reportgunner 7y ago
  Hey hey hey, tune down the constructive criticism!

mrb 7y ago

It's incredible that people on HN, a technical readership, still don't understand why the energetic or computational "waste" of proof-of-work is needed. There is simply no other known way of implementing a decentralized, censorship-resistant, robust digital currency. Without PoW you lose one of these properties. Proof-of-stake doesn't work. It isn't robust. Eg. PoS cryptocurrencies can't resolved which chain is correct after a network split. There are many other unsolved problems. That's why Ethereum is years behind schedule in designing and deploying PoS. Replacing PoW with a useful algorithm (eg. protein folding) loses decentralization (a central trusted authority must verify/sample who performs the work correctly). Trust-based systems (Stellar, Libra) lose censorship-resistance. A "dumb" PoW is literally the only practical solution. If the social benefits of a cryptocurrency are worth the computational power, and if PoW is the only technical solution to implement it, then by definition PoW isn't wasteful.

ackbar03 7y ago
Yes but for what? Is this proof of stake worth how many dollars spent in energy consumption?
danmaz74 7y ago
If the only way to have a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency is to waste an inordinate amount of energy and increase our global warming and pollution problems, then we'll have to do without that kind of digital currency. It's a matter of priorities.
- mrb 7y ago
  "inordinate amount of energy" It's comparable to what a single hydro dam like the Three Gorges Dam can produce. Don't fall prey to the scary comparisons BECI employs to mislead its readers. Global warming is critical, but there are other energy wasters much, much bigger than Bitcoin miners. Besides, as it's been said many times, miners tend to use renewables since they have become cheaper than fossil fuel power plants. A recent paper by Stoll et al. estimated CO2 emissions as being comparable to what a single city like Las Vegas emits: https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1139439068570193921 https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/113943906857019392...

agumonkey 7y ago

Isn't it the idea behind some other kinds of blockchain ? computing things other than hashes so that you get currency and results ?

Erlich_Bachman 7y ago

So many times this argument comes up and every time I am amazed at how ignorant it seems to me. But it is very hard to discuss... Can't we all just agree that what is a valuable use of someones watts or petahashes per second is a subjective choice? That people are free to value their resources as they see fit? You personally might not value securing Bitcoin network, but many other people find it valueable and it is perfectly fine in a free country to allow them do what they please if you are similarly allowed to do what you please (no one forces you to buy Bitcoin miners)?

ben_w 7y ago
No, we can’t agree on that. The problem is the impact these things have on the rest of us when we ourselves have no interest in bitcoin. If bitcoin existed purely inside a virtual world — say, if coin miners were a virtual good that WoW players could buy which made WoW money appear in their inventory according to similar rules but without the actual hard work of computing anything beyond a lightweight O(num_players) random number generator on the server, then it stops being anyone else’s problem.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  Are my christmas lights that I put on during winter also everyone else's problem because they waste energy (that I bought with my own money)? Are you going to get into my business there as well and tell me what I can and cannot spend my resources on, because you claim that they have an "impact on you and you have no interest in them"? I am pretty sure that the best consensus the western world has come up with is that if there are any externalities, they can simply be taxed in like for example a carbon tax. But telling other people what they should and should not find valueable as if you have some sort of ultimate authority on knowing what is valueable, well, I hope you can already see what is wrong with that. Value is subjective. As in, other people have a right to decide for themselves.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    > Are my christmas lights that I put on during winter also everyone else's problem because they waste energy (that I bought with my own money)? Yes but too little to bother about. Transportation and inefficient heat management are the only common ones that matter. > they can simply be taxed in like for example a carbon tax On that we agree. I believe car fuel is taxed appropriately in the UK, but in general these externalities are not properly accounted for. If they were, it would be a different matter, but they’re not.