5 ms·

'Pure waste' is very much a point of view. If you dislike porn, the entire energy to create and distribute that, is 'pure waste' in your view (last time I looke

by berkes 6y ago

'Pure waste' is very much a point of view. If you dislike porn, the entire energy to create and distribute that, is 'pure waste' in your view (last time I looked, streaming porn consumes about the same amount of energy as Bitcoin. This probably changed by now). If, like me, you dislike billboards, all those giant flaring screens, burning neon, or LCD pixels, screaming to make you buy Pepsi, is 'pure waste'. If you dislike Bitcoin, obviously any kilowatt used by it is 'pure waste'.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
A waste by most societal measures. Purely imaginary point backed by nothing that is easily defrauded and highly volatile. With no societal or personal value. And we've chosen to burn gigawatts of energy on this foolish game. Its easy to see it as enormous waste.
- WinstonSmith84 6y ago
  A waste by your societal measures. It's easy to see it as enormous waste, for you Speaking of "burnt gigawatts", if our society is still using coal to produce energy, are you blaming also Bitcoin for this? Too easy, sorry.
  - africanboy 6y ago
    it's a waste for 99.9% of the World population, assuming that bitcoin's 6 million wallets represent 6 million different people. So yes, it's arithmetically a total waste.
IMTDb 6y ago
The vast difference here is that the energy consumption required by Bitcoin is integral to its model. The stated goal is to make massive amount of otherwise useless computations. If there was any way to stream porn using less electricity, we would consume less electricity for that. If there was any way to make those billboards consume less electricity, we consume less electricity. As soon as there is a new way to do bitcoin related operations using less electricity (eg: ASICS), the security of the network decreases. And everyone moves to the new model, in order to go back to consuming a lot of electricity, in order to restore trust in the network. On a macro scale, Bitcoin has to consume lots of electricity, any possible improvement in that area needs to be wiped out by just people going back to consuming more electricity, otherwise the model fails. The whole bitcoin trust model revolves around people being ready to waste a ton energy for it. That's not the case of porn, or billboards: the energy consumption is just a side effect and not a requirement, they have value outside of the consumed electricity. Bitcoin entire value is only dependent on how much people are willing to invest in it, which roughly translates on how much electricity is wasted.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > If there was any way to stream porn using less electricity, we would consume less electricity for that In a perfect world, yes. We would use less electricity if we realize we could. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in the real world. In reality it has to make economic sense, as capitalism is "the way of life" in the western world (and many other places), otherwise it won't be thought of. We're slowly changing this. Bitcoin is capitalism modernized, fully on the internet and on our computers. Since computers and the internet tends to multiply everything, we now have capitalism as a protocol, intensified like never before. Since being environment friendly is not a benefit for the participant in the network, it won't be a consideration. A big fault in the protocol, and hard to see how it can be solved in Proof of Work. Luckily there are some people working on alternatives but we have yet to see if they actually work in practice on the same scale as Bitcoin.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    Data centers and cloud providers are optimizing flops per watt, not flops per second. Energy providers are finding that wind and solar have become incredibly cheap, and transitioning as fast as they can. It took us a while to overcome political hurdles erected by the carbon-burning industry, but it turns out this stuff just makes sense on an economic level.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      Not sure it's happening as fast as you seem to indicate here. And if it is, what's the problem with Bitcoin and energy consumption, exactly the same thing will happen, but faster since Bitcoin is all about money?
      - klyrs 6y ago
        Where did I indicate a timescale (outside of "it took us a while" -- wherein I said that progress is slow)? As many others have pointed out, energy efficiency is seen as a bug and bitcoin has repeatedly increased hashing difficulty in order to offset increasing efficiency. Likewise, if a locale is known to have cheap power, miners move in until the power isn't cheap anymore. Eventually we'll be on 90+% renewables, and it won't be as bad, but ultimately, bitcoin is a space heater, and never a battery unless you devise a system to capture, store, and generate electricity from that heat.
Monitorio 6y ago
yes 'pure waste' Now 1. a bad billboard doesn't make bad btc better. Neither does everything else you mentioned. 2. there is a margin of difference on how much enjoyment and entertainment something like porn makes vs. btc does. If we would need to cut down on a lot of things to reduce co2, i would argue that btc would be much much further up the list then porn.

by berkes 6y ago

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

A waste by most societal measures. Purely imaginary point backed by nothing that is easily defrauded and highly volatile. With no societal or personal value. And we've chosen to burn gigawatts of energy on this foolish game. Its easy to see it as enormous waste.

WinstonSmith84 6y ago
A waste by your societal measures. It's easy to see it as enormous waste, for you Speaking of "burnt gigawatts", if our society is still using coal to produce energy, are you blaming also Bitcoin for this? Too easy, sorry.
- africanboy 6y ago
  it's a waste for 99.9% of the World population, assuming that bitcoin's 6 million wallets represent 6 million different people. So yes, it's arithmetically a total waste.

IMTDb 6y ago

The vast difference here is that the energy consumption required by Bitcoin is integral to its model. The stated goal is to make massive amount of otherwise useless computations. If there was any way to stream porn using less electricity, we would consume less electricity for that. If there was any way to make those billboards consume less electricity, we consume less electricity. As soon as there is a new way to do bitcoin related operations using less electricity (eg: ASICS), the security of the network decreases. And everyone moves to the new model, in order to go back to consuming a lot of electricity, in order to restore trust in the network. On a macro scale, Bitcoin has to consume lots of electricity, any possible improvement in that area needs to be wiped out by just people going back to consuming more electricity, otherwise the model fails. The whole bitcoin trust model revolves around people being ready to waste a ton energy for it. That's not the case of porn, or billboards: the energy consumption is just a side effect and not a requirement, they have value outside of the consumed electricity. Bitcoin entire value is only dependent on how much people are willing to invest in it, which roughly translates on how much electricity is wasted.

capableweb 6y ago
> If there was any way to stream porn using less electricity, we would consume less electricity for that In a perfect world, yes. We would use less electricity if we realize we could. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in the real world. In reality it has to make economic sense, as capitalism is "the way of life" in the western world (and many other places), otherwise it won't be thought of. We're slowly changing this. Bitcoin is capitalism modernized, fully on the internet and on our computers. Since computers and the internet tends to multiply everything, we now have capitalism as a protocol, intensified like never before. Since being environment friendly is not a benefit for the participant in the network, it won't be a consideration. A big fault in the protocol, and hard to see how it can be solved in Proof of Work. Luckily there are some people working on alternatives but we have yet to see if they actually work in practice on the same scale as Bitcoin.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Data centers and cloud providers are optimizing flops per watt, not flops per second. Energy providers are finding that wind and solar have become incredibly cheap, and transitioning as fast as they can. It took us a while to overcome political hurdles erected by the carbon-burning industry, but it turns out this stuff just makes sense on an economic level.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    Not sure it's happening as fast as you seem to indicate here. And if it is, what's the problem with Bitcoin and energy consumption, exactly the same thing will happen, but faster since Bitcoin is all about money?
    - klyrs 6y ago
      Where did I indicate a timescale (outside of "it took us a while" -- wherein I said that progress is slow)? As many others have pointed out, energy efficiency is seen as a bug and bitcoin has repeatedly increased hashing difficulty in order to offset increasing efficiency. Likewise, if a locale is known to have cheap power, miners move in until the power isn't cheap anymore. Eventually we'll be on 90+% renewables, and it won't be as bad, but ultimately, bitcoin is a space heater, and never a battery unless you devise a system to capture, store, and generate electricity from that heat.

Monitorio 6y ago

yes 'pure waste' Now 1. a bad billboard doesn't make bad btc better. Neither does everything else you mentioned. 2. there is a margin of difference on how much enjoyment and entertainment something like porn makes vs. btc does. If we would need to cut down on a lot of things to reduce co2, i would argue that btc would be much much further up the list then porn.