4 ms·

> Other blockchains are vastly expanding scalability, as well as eliminating the energy usage. The energy usage combined with proof of work is the backing. If

> Other blockchains are vastly expanding scalability, as well as eliminating the energy usage. The energy usage combined with proof of work is the backing. If you break that for Bitcoin als is left is trust. The energy used and consumed is like the USD tied to gold (which it is no longer since quite some time)

Retric 6y ago
You can do proof of work based on random memory access for example rather than pure computation. The monetary cost ends up being identical, but it’s much better for the environment.
- TheDong 6y ago
  I haven't heard of this sort of proof of work before. Do you have a reference to it? If you're referring to memory-hard hashing algorithms, I believe those are just resilient to ASICs/GPUs, but still require significant CPU energy. I'm not convinced those would be better for the environment, so if you're referring to those, do you also have an explanation for why they'd draw relatively less power?
  - Retric 6y ago
    Memory-hard hashing algorithms are basically the same idea. They use less power simply because people are going to spend the same total amount of money in terms of compute hardware + energy, however RAM consumes less energy per per dollar spent on it than ASICs/CPU’s etc. 3W per 8GB of DDR4 is a reasonable baseline. https://www.crucial.com/support/articles-faq-memory/how-much-power-does-memory-use https://www.crucial.com/support/articles-faq-memory/how-much...
- gruez 6y ago
  >but it’s much better for the environment. Why? If OPEX is reduced (lower electricity costs), it's logical to assume that it will be replaced with CAPEX, given how competitive mining operations are. If that's the case, that will mean electricity being used to power ASICs being replaced with chemicals required to fab semiconductors (along with electricity for those fabs). It might be better in terms of GHG emissions, it would be a wash for overall environmental impact.
  - Retric 6y ago
    Thinking about environmental issues abstractly aka energy vs chemicals doesn’t give you a basis for comparison. You need to dig into the details. In a green world you’re comparing X square feet of solar panels + Batteries with building RAM and environmentally building more RAM is less damaging.
nyhc99 6y ago
It is hoped among Ethereum enthusiasts that moving from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake in Ethereum 2.0 will solve those massive energy usage problems without introducing vulnerabilities into the system.
- gruez 6y ago
  >without introducing vulnerabilities into the system. Did they end up solving the "nothing at stake" problem?
  - PretzelPirate 6y ago
    Yes. With Ethereum’s PoS system, you get penalized for voting in multiple forks. See https://eth.wiki/en/concepts/proof-of-stake-faqs https://eth.wiki/en/concepts/proof-of-stake-faqs (I can’t link to the paragraph).
    - gruez 6y ago
      The "What is the “nothing at stake” problem and how can it be fixed?" proposes 2 solutions. Which one does ethereum use? The page itself is pretty long, and I can't find an answer with a quick skim.
DennisP 6y ago
The effort going into proof of work is the effect of Bitcoin's value, not the cause. Due to the difficulty adjustment, the total mining expense adjusts to be a little less than the real value of the reward offered.

Retric 6y ago

You can do proof of work based on random memory access for example rather than pure computation. The monetary cost ends up being identical, but it’s much better for the environment.

TheDong 6y ago
I haven't heard of this sort of proof of work before. Do you have a reference to it? If you're referring to memory-hard hashing algorithms, I believe those are just resilient to ASICs/GPUs, but still require significant CPU energy. I'm not convinced those would be better for the environment, so if you're referring to those, do you also have an explanation for why they'd draw relatively less power?
- Retric 6y ago
  Memory-hard hashing algorithms are basically the same idea. They use less power simply because people are going to spend the same total amount of money in terms of compute hardware + energy, however RAM consumes less energy per per dollar spent on it than ASICs/CPU’s etc. 3W per 8GB of DDR4 is a reasonable baseline. https://www.crucial.com/support/articles-faq-memory/how-much-power-does-memory-use https://www.crucial.com/support/articles-faq-memory/how-much...
gruez 6y ago
>but it’s much better for the environment. Why? If OPEX is reduced (lower electricity costs), it's logical to assume that it will be replaced with CAPEX, given how competitive mining operations are. If that's the case, that will mean electricity being used to power ASICs being replaced with chemicals required to fab semiconductors (along with electricity for those fabs). It might be better in terms of GHG emissions, it would be a wash for overall environmental impact.
- Retric 6y ago
  Thinking about environmental issues abstractly aka energy vs chemicals doesn’t give you a basis for comparison. You need to dig into the details. In a green world you’re comparing X square feet of solar panels + Batteries with building RAM and environmentally building more RAM is less damaging.

nyhc99 6y ago

It is hoped among Ethereum enthusiasts that moving from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake in Ethereum 2.0 will solve those massive energy usage problems without introducing vulnerabilities into the system.

gruez 6y ago
>without introducing vulnerabilities into the system. Did they end up solving the "nothing at stake" problem?
- PretzelPirate 6y ago
  Yes. With Ethereum’s PoS system, you get penalized for voting in multiple forks. See https://eth.wiki/en/concepts/proof-of-stake-faqs https://eth.wiki/en/concepts/proof-of-stake-faqs (I can’t link to the paragraph).
  - gruez 6y ago
    The "What is the “nothing at stake” problem and how can it be fixed?" proposes 2 solutions. Which one does ethereum use? The page itself is pretty long, and I can't find an answer with a quick skim.

DennisP 6y ago

The effort going into proof of work is the effect of Bitcoin's value, not the cause. Due to the difficulty adjustment, the total mining expense adjusts to be a little less than the real value of the reward offered.