4 ms·

I honestly just can't buy into high energy usage as a criticism. I think we should be focusing our efforts on massively expanding our power generation, not cutt

• woeh 6y ago
  As a counterargument, proof of work takes all the energy it can get: because bitcoin automatically makes the work to proof more difficult. This means when there is more available energy it's lucrative for miners to put more energy in the system. However, no more bitcoins are outputted. The only extra output is heat from used hardware. In some other related topic on HN, someone compared it to a car, where more energy would not just mean more miles driven, but an equally longer road.
  • pochamago 6y ago
    You're probably right that the incentives are misaligned. I suppose I'm just reacting against what I feel is an anti-progressive assumption, which is that reducing our carbon footprint to desirable levels will require a massive reduction in our energy footprint.
    • woeh 6y ago
      I understand your sentiment, and I agree that the future probably is one where we use and generate a lot more energy then we do now. But I do hope that in that future we also use that energy a little bit smarter, and proof of work's incentives are indeed aligned poorly from this perspective. Disclaimer: I am conflicted about the subject, because I think there is merit in crypto, and also hold some myself.