5 ms·
My issue with it is even more fundamental than this: it is structurally impossible for Proof of Work to become more efficient. If you find a more energy-efficie
by lmkg 6y ago
My issue with it is even more fundamental than this: it is structurally impossible for Proof of Work to become more efficient. If you find a more energy-efficient way to mine, the correct decision is not to reduce your energy usage, but rather to use the same amount of energy to compute more hashes.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- aeternum 6y agoBy computing more hashes, you raise the difficulty for everyone else mining so you do ultimately push out the less efficient miners.
- meow112012 6y agoIf someone has money and power already, they can take a better chance to get more bitcoin. How about the other guys and the other guys ... 10/20 years later?
- lxgr 6y agoThe problem is that there is, by definition, economic incentive to spend an amount of electric energy equal to the economic value of transaction confirmation to all protocol participants.
- rspeele 6y agoThat's efficient if you define efficiency as hashes computed per watt. That's the metric by which less-efficient miners are driven out. However, this does nothing for the overall energy efficiency of Bitcoin, which could be defined as transactions processed per gigawatt. If energy gets cheaper, that number only gets smaller.
- panarky 6y agoThe energy-per-transaction ratio is only relevant if the utility of Bitcoin is to compete with Visa to process transactions. However, if the ultimate utility of Bitcoin is to store trillions of dollars of value, transmit it into the future, across borders, quickly, pseudonymously, and without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments, then energy-per-transaction is an inappropriate metric. Bitcoin is the only asset with these properties, and it doesn't need many transactions to do what it does best. If you find you're angry about Bitcoin's energy usage but you're not even more angry about the energy wasted by industries and technologies that have much less social utility, then maybe it's not the wasted energy that you're angry about after all.
- mint2 6y ago> without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments And conversely too! letting corrupt governments and corporations transfer money with ease!
- toyg 6y agoLet's not forget druglords, illegal arms dealers, hitmen...
- meowkit 6y agoPaging argument from 2010... You would use Monero or physical cash for those activities. Bitcoin is much easier to trace once you have a lead.
- toyg 6y agoIt's just a tradeoff between opsec and ease of use. Monero is harder to turn back into cash, precisely because it carries a worse reputation. Note that my argument was pro btc - I can see underground demand sustaining its price in the long run.
- Solvitieg 6y agoBecause you definitely can't do that with fiat... This is such an old, tired take.
- bayesian_horse 6y agoNo, you really can't do that easily and sometimes at all with "fiat". Which is why "money laundering" is a thing. Or drug cartels having the problem to stash or move hundreds of thousands of small dollar bills over North and South American borders. A somewhat trustworthy state having control over or transparency into money transfers generally is a very good thing. If your government isn't trustworthy enough, you have bigger problems than the currency.