4 ms·
This article is just bad. There is nothing wrong with proof of work. It is useful. People also use Bitcoin, Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies for useful thin
by knuthsat 6y ago
This article is just bad.
There is nothing wrong with proof of work. It is useful. People also use Bitcoin, Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies for useful things. Energy demands are nothing compared to other useful human activities.
Also, energy consumption for Bitcoin rarely has other externalities.
Livestock based diet is another collective human activity that wastes enormous amounts of energy, creates disastrous amounts of pollution (water, air, ocean...).
Proof of work, compared to that is really insignificant.
Cryptocurrencies are great. They created a wave of new research for interesting protocols. Confidential transactions (with addresses and amounts encrypted and not public, but still on the chain) are a great invention. A lot of cryptography tricks were discovered. Papers are appearing that support offline transactions, some in the future might get rid of the blockchain completely.
I'd rather humans spend time playing with cryptocurrencies than thinking new and efficient ways to raise and kill livestock while periodically ignoring externalities.
- adamcstephens 6y agoEnergy consumption itself has externalities, so it’s a bit odd to say Bitcoin rarely has any.
- knuthsat 6y agoWell, I'm pretty sure Bitcoin does not have livestock waste, air pollution and similar impact compared to the energy use of Argentina. So comparing Argentina and Bitcoin with just energy use is a bit odd to me too.
- adamcstephens 6y agoAnybody mining Bitcoin in my region of the US is likely using coal power. That doesn’t have air pollution? The components that go into the hardware don’t have their own externalities? Yes, livestock has real problems, but that doesn’t negate the negatives of other things. Both things can be bad for the planet.
- knuthsat 6y agoBut let's "profile" how bad they are. Comparing Bitcoin to Argentina is not good profiling. Also, optimizing Bitcoin probably makes less sense than optimizing some of the other offenders in energy use and pollution. Why are we discussing the scope of "bad for the planet" if we aren't then "profiling" the effect correctly. Me, traveling to work on a bike probably is probably bad for the planet but there are levels to it.