4 ms·

Great comment, it articulates something I’ve had on the tip of my tongue but couldn’t express. Energy usage itself is not a bad thing, it’s the energy source

Great comment, it articulates something I’ve had on the tip of my tongue but couldn’t express. Energy usage itself is not a bad thing, it’s the energy source that can be environmentally problematic. Currently 39% of mining power is driven by renewables [1]. It’s not much but a good start. The simplest solution to speed this up would be to create a law requiring that all mining must come from renewable sources (or at least tax those that don’t). It would drive innovation, jobs, and make locations with renewable sources competitive places to live. [1] https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-finance/publications/3rd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking-study https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternati...

geekpowa 6y ago
The energy usage of itself is a red herring. My issue is just how incredibly wasteful and inefficient PoW is. It's resource requirements completely disproportionate to the the underlying problem/solution space. It offends my sensibilities and aesthetic appreciation of elegance in design. It is like contemplating a trillion record bubble sort.
- washedup 6y ago
  It’s the most secure way to do it, which unfortunately requires the most energy... I have gone back and forth when considering PoS but fact of the matter is, PoW is the most secure today. Doesn’t mean there isn’t a better solution, so I totally agree that we need to try to find ways to trim the energy cost.
- cwkoss 6y ago
  I'm not a fan of the economic incentives of Proof of Stake. Are there any new alternate proof systems that have been developed recently? Hard to see the interesting projects in such a crowded field of crapcoins.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    How are the economic incentives of Proof of Stake any different from Proof of Work?
    - gruez 6y ago
      The fundamental problem is that with PoS it's possible to dispose of your holdings yet still retain voting power (in the past, from the blockchain's perspective), whereas the same can't be done with PoW's mining equipment.
      - bhupy 6y ago
        With PoS, withdrawing your stake (read: disposing of your holdings) withdraws your ability to act as a validator. And pretty much every mainstream PoS implementation imposes a delay on stake withdrawal to give the rest of the network time to make sure that whoever is withdrawing their stake hasn't already validated fraudulent transactions.
        gruez 6y ago
        That's still fundamentally a weaker system, no? Specifically, still possible to double spend, the only difference is that we assume that the network wouldn't accept block re-orgs that are that long.
hedora 6y ago
Regardless of where the energy comes from, it would be better spent on desperately needed carbon capture.
- washedup 6y ago
  There is currently a $100 million prize out there. That should help a bit?
  - imtringued 6y ago
    That's just for R&D. You still need a culture and policy that rewards deploying carbon capture on large scales.
lai-yin 6y ago
Interesting stats in that citation. Hydropower dominates in the renewables category and North America has the highest regional share of renewables powered mining.
- monopoledance 6y ago
  FYI, hydropower has a fixed capacity due to obvious limitations, namely viable rivers to dam up. There is basically no option for hydro expansion left on earth. In that light, I think the "sustainable mining" argument is pretty flawed. We can't scale hydro- and geothermal power, but we need it for base load in a sustainable future. It's the worst energy resource to occupy.

geekpowa 6y ago

The energy usage of itself is a red herring. My issue is just how incredibly wasteful and inefficient PoW is. It's resource requirements completely disproportionate to the the underlying problem/solution space. It offends my sensibilities and aesthetic appreciation of elegance in design. It is like contemplating a trillion record bubble sort.

washedup 6y ago
It’s the most secure way to do it, which unfortunately requires the most energy... I have gone back and forth when considering PoS but fact of the matter is, PoW is the most secure today. Doesn’t mean there isn’t a better solution, so I totally agree that we need to try to find ways to trim the energy cost.
cwkoss 6y ago
I'm not a fan of the economic incentives of Proof of Stake. Are there any new alternate proof systems that have been developed recently? Hard to see the interesting projects in such a crowded field of crapcoins.
- bhupy 6y ago
  How are the economic incentives of Proof of Stake any different from Proof of Work?
  - gruez 6y ago
    The fundamental problem is that with PoS it's possible to dispose of your holdings yet still retain voting power (in the past, from the blockchain's perspective), whereas the same can't be done with PoW's mining equipment.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      With PoS, withdrawing your stake (read: disposing of your holdings) withdraws your ability to act as a validator. And pretty much every mainstream PoS implementation imposes a delay on stake withdrawal to give the rest of the network time to make sure that whoever is withdrawing their stake hasn't already validated fraudulent transactions.
      - gruez 6y ago
        That's still fundamentally a weaker system, no? Specifically, still possible to double spend, the only difference is that we assume that the network wouldn't accept block re-orgs that are that long.

hedora 6y ago

Regardless of where the energy comes from, it would be better spent on desperately needed carbon capture.

washedup 6y ago
There is currently a $100 million prize out there. That should help a bit?
- imtringued 6y ago
  That's just for R&D. You still need a culture and policy that rewards deploying carbon capture on large scales.

lai-yin 6y ago

Interesting stats in that citation. Hydropower dominates in the renewables category and North America has the highest regional share of renewables powered mining.

monopoledance 6y ago
FYI, hydropower has a fixed capacity due to obvious limitations, namely viable rivers to dam up. There is basically no option for hydro expansion left on earth. In that light, I think the "sustainable mining" argument is pretty flawed. We can't scale hydro- and geothermal power, but we need it for base load in a sustainable future. It's the worst energy resource to occupy.