20 ms·

I think the main premise of this article is the fact that crypto's carbon emission is insane, especially Bitcoin, which I agree (I don't hold Bitcoin for this e

I think the main premise of this article is the fact that crypto's carbon emission is insane, especially Bitcoin, which I agree (I don't hold Bitcoin for this exact reason). But there are many other crypto that uses Proof of Stake, way way greener than Proof of Work, such as Cardano. Even Ethereum is transitioning to Proof of Stake. This article should be re-titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Proof of Work Ban".

hpoe 6y ago
Wasn't that posted like 2 days ago on HN already?
- datafl4sh 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26623182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26623182
- pmurt7 6y ago
  Yeah the guy regularly posts his agenda on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=stephendiehl.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=stephendiehl.com
jtolds 6y ago
I came here to say this exact same thing. There is seriously interesting and useful real work being done under the umbrella term "decentralized finance" or DeFi. It is hard to cut through the noise of get rich quick schemes, but at the core, the DeFi stuff, built on top of green cryptocurrency (proof of stake), along with quickly improving zero-knowledge proof tech, is actually useful and groundbreaking. Bitcoin and proof of work should totally be banned.
- christiansakai 6y ago
  Indeed, the world of cyptocurrency/blockchain research has many ground breaking papers and news are often real time, even crypto news aggregator can't keep up with it. HN crowd refuses to care about it because of bad taste of crypto in general.
  - jtolds 6y ago
    It's a bummer because zkRollups and their ilk in particular are flat out amazing new cryptographic constructions, but because they weren't developed by Schneier or Rivest or DJB, the wider programming industry is ignoring them.
  - samvher 6y ago
    Do you have recommendations on where to find this stuff? I agree that there seems to be a lot of interesting work going on and the ideas of decentralized finance have a lot of potential. At the moment it really is hard to cut through the noise though and from what I can find just searching for an afternoon it looks like a minefield. I'm hoping that the bad stuff will all fade away and something useful will remain.
    - christiansakai 6y ago
      You can join each crypto's subreddits/youtube/twitter to find more. This is basically what crypto news aggregator do. They just read articles/watch youtube videos all day.
  - DennisP 6y ago
    Could you link "crypto news aggregator" for us?
- einpoklum 6y ago
  I'm not sure. Do these DeFi schemes involve currencies which cannot be cancelled or created in large amounts by political decision (e.g. democratic)? If the answer is "yes", then these may be just another form of pyramid scheme, perhaps less taxing on the environment.
  - jtolds 6y ago
    The answer is not yes, and there is clear evidence that cryptocurrencies are cancelled and created democratically. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560626) talks about the Steem/Hive split, and explains how the community democratically overrode the network owner's undemocratic decisions.
    - einpoklum 6y ago
      That Steem example is interesting. I wonder what the basis for the voting system they have there, though. Anyway, when you have a democratic (or otherwise subject to popular influence) institution which can do things like "print more money", forfeit some part of existing money, levy taxes etc. - then indeed it's an interesting and potentially positive-in-my-opinion cooperative pooling of resources. Of course then you have the opposite problem, which is the tyranny of the majority, but "you can't grab the rope at both ends".
- salawat 6y ago
  Proof of Stake is not inherently decentralized, you realize that, right? It'll trend toward centalization over time as coins end up getting delegated to the asset class equivalents of banks and brokers. They will pop up. Once they do, They will be regulated. Then you're back to square one.
  - nbardy 6y ago
    And then you have a monetary system that runs a blockchain instead of this paper system the US has. Not everyone wants to take down banks or destroy fiat.
- atweiden 6y ago
  > I came here to say this exact same thing. There is seriously interesting and useful real work being done under the umbrella term "decentralized finance" or DeFi. It is hard to cut through the noise of get rich quick schemes, but at the core, the DeFi stuff, built on top of green cryptocurrency (proof of stake), along with quickly improving zero-knowledge proof tech, is actually useful and groundbreaking. The truth is that no one uses cryptocurrency for anything. Ethereum is just as much a speculative store of value as Bitcoin is, if not moreso given the numerous competitors it has to contend with — Bitcoin arguably has none. In a way, “speculative store of value” has merely been whitelabeled under the terms “digital gold” and “defi”. The people who claim increduously they’re buying ETH to do transactions are misrepresenting the situation to an extreme degree. > Bitcoin and proof of work should totally be banned. Where is your disclosure statement?
slibhb 6y ago
The main premise of the article is that cryptocurrencies are "speculation for speculation’s sake," i.e. gambling, and that's bad. Also, the article claims that they contribute to inequality. The green stuff is basically a side note. I don't think it's a terribly strong case but I suppose it depends on whether you agree that crypto is gambling and if you think gambling should banned. Anyway, I think lots of people stupidly speculate on things. I cast my vote by not speculating on those things. Should I be able to stop others from speculating?
- christiansakai 6y ago
  In conclusion, none of the points addressed in this article hold strong ground.
  - maigret 6y ago
    Until the environmental problem is clearly solved, it still holds strong.
    - arcanon 6y ago
      What environmental problem? You mean creating additional incentives for new green energy investment? (Which is now the cheapest form of new energy...) “Environmentalists” need to be less myopic, you are holding us back.
- api 6y ago
  Most cryptocurrency activity is speculation, but so is a huge proportion of what happens on Wall St. Are we going to ban hedge funds? What about casinos or even worse state-backed lotteries? It's the same sort of hypocrisy as deplatforming Parler. While I did not weep for Parler, YouTube and Facebook are the largest platforms for alt-right/fascist propaganda. YouTube's "rabbit hole algorithm" is by far the most powerful engine of indoctrination, and while the most egregious stuff has mostly been kicked off the platform it's still full of "soft pill" fascist/racist material. I am not sure things like Qanon or the alt-right in general would even exist (to such a degree) were it not for YouTube. A ban or tax on proof of work mining is tempting but it would just offshore that activity. I suppose you could ban PoW cryptocurrencies but there are many alternatives. This is generally a shitty article.
purple_ferret 6y ago
There are many problems with Proof of Stake (inflation, centralization, etc). Cardano mainnet doesn't even exist yet. Smoke and mirrors.
- christiansakai 6y ago
  That remains to be seen. Ethereum has their own way of solving PoS weakness and Cardano has their own way. You need to read more.
- svachalek 6y ago
  Inflation and centralization are just as possible on PoW (see Binance Smart Chain) and just as easy to avoid on PoS. Cardano main net has been around a long time. It just doesn't support smart contracts yet.
- djschnei 6y ago
  Cardano mainnet doesn't exist? What?... The Mainnet has 2,289 active stake pool operators, which comes out to >99% decentralized, with 71.09% of the total ADA in circulation being actively staked on those pools ($26.83b/$37.7b). It has an incredibly active and healthy mainnet...
  - kanwisher 6y ago
    With no smart contracts or actual usable functionality. Its just a chain with staking and nothing useful
    - djschnei 6y ago
      https://i.redd.it/9v8n8zaugjp61.jpg https://i.redd.it/9v8n8zaugjp61.jpg Nothing useful is a HUGE stretch - unless only smart contracts are 'useful'. The ecosystem is new but growing rapidly. Let's circle back to this comment in 1-2 months?
superkuh 6y ago
>This article should be re-titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Proof of Work Ban". I don't see the difference between that and "The Political Case for a Blanket Cryptocurrency Ban". The outcome is the same. Etherium has not proven proof of stake can work at scale. If it does that will be great. But it's no certain thing and it'll probably mean more Eth forks like Eth classic. Most other cryptocurrencies are tied to bitcoin's ecosystem to have value at all.
- je_bailey 6y ago
  To say that "Etherium has not proven proof of stake can work at scale" is true but means not a whole lot. Since it implies other's haven't. Cardano, as an example, will be 100% decentralized Proof of Stake within the next few hours. I see no reason at this point for bitcoins existence but the technology that's being built on top of blockchains is fascinating and shouldn't be condemned for something that bitcoin can't do.
  - superkuh 6y ago
    It's disingenuous, or confusing to me at least, to present Cardano, a cryptocurrency started in 2017 I haven't even heard of, as proving the same thing as real used and tested cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Etherium.
- DennisP 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "at scale" but Ethereum's PoS currently has over $6 billion staked with over 100,000 validators, without any sort of delegation. The protocol is designed to handle a lot more validators without modification, and resource requirements on validators today are low.
louwrentius 6y ago
I think personally that proof of stake and proof of work both don’t matter in the end. I believe that all cryptocurrencies are at their heart scams. Proof of stake doesn’t change this dynamic. As I see it, cryptocurrencies doesn’t actually solve any real, significant problems we face as a (global) society. And to pick one important thing: they exclusively enable crypolocker randsomeware, and we know their devastating impact. Dollars are abused too, but the dollar gives so much back, our societies are based on it. I see no benefit to society of cryptocurrencies and I would really like to see them go. Nothing good has come from them. Zero.
- runj__ 6y ago
  "Scam" would indicate intent which I'd seriously think you'd be hard pressed to find behind the bitcoin white paper, it would be a really bad, slow scam if it included the number of steps where bitcoin would be where it is right now. I can put a virus on someone's computer and make them mail physical dollars or make dead-drops or whatever to remove it, ransomware is not a problem of cryptocurrency.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    Ransomware is entirely made possible due to cryptocurrencies. Your funny James Bond Scenario is just dishonest, you know this doesn’t scale and dead drops won’t protect you. The risk is too high.
- ostenning 6y ago
  Tell the people of Venezuela that. Cryptocurrencies have the ability to free people from broken dictatorial economies. While you may enjoy the benefits of a first world currency, check your privilege for just one moment and realise the world is much bigger than you would believe.
  - lucian1900 6y ago
    Venezuela’s problems are due to US aggression and sanctions, not its fiat currency.
SavantIdiot 6y ago
Monero, Ravencoin, and Tether use a proof-of-work function that requires CPUs and defeats GPUs and ASICs, so there is an argument to be made that perhaps there is a slightly greener proof-of-work function. I don't quite understand how their function RandomX works, it requires a VM, lots of memory, and randomly generated work functions that need to be translated by the VM. Been hunting for a good page to explain this, but the point is: it aims to make mining more decentralized because the average user can still participate. I don't like proof of stake because again, the rich get richer in this scenario, which works against the decentralized core value of cryptocurrency.
- tracedddd 6y ago
  While that is the aim, I don’t find it convincing. Sure, the average person can mine, but the hashrate will be small compared to professionals with tens of thousands of units, purchased at special rates for bulk, with matching low energy rates. Or free energy in the case of botnet operators. In practice this just degrades to a situation very similar to ASICs, admittedly with the benefit that the hardware has a purpose beyond mining and with multiple (uninterested) manufacturers. In that way it is perhaps more decentralized, while also open to additional vulnerabilities. All in all it’s mostly just a way to differentiate from btc on a theoretical point rather than have any real advantage.
revel 6y ago
The big problem with the way that "cryptocurrencies" are talked about is that cryptocurrency is, at least in the mainstream vernacular, synonymous with bitcoin. Bitcoin is an outlier in terms of how it works and what it does. Most tokens sit on top of Ethereum and at this point it's probably more accurate to describe cryptocurrencies as being synonymous with ETH, not BTC. In my opinion regulatory action against PoW is all but inevitable. Ethereum is a platform, so there are powerful incentives to make it work more efficiently and use less power. Those plans are already well under way and, whenever Ethereum 2.0 gets launched, the power consumption of the crypto sector will drop dramatically and the network will be massively more powerful, attracting subsequent adoption. In this case, miners and developers have aligned interests. That's not the case for Bitcoin. Existing miners benefit from PoW, so I don't expect Bitcoin to migrate without some regulatory arm twisting.
agentultra 6y ago
I think part of the problem with believing that "at some undetermined point in the future, it will improve," is not a compelling argument against turning off crypto-currencies. From an emissions perspective Ethereum has been clinging to the belief that Proof-of-Stake is better, in theory, and is perennially, "just around the corner." In the mean time it has been and continues to run on Proof-of-Work and contributes in no small part to the environmental impact these crypto-coins have. Internal combustion engines are already really close to their peak efficiency vs emissions output and they still contribute a huge and growing amount to overall CO2 emissions. We need to design cities to curb the need for cars, replace as many as we can with electric, and design better, more accessible public transportation. Not seek more efficient internal combustion engines and promote their use. Crypto-currencies account for an abysmally small number of financial transactions in the world. Literally inconsequential. And they chewed up an astounding amount of energy in order to process them. To scale that up to a world where everyone buys their bread and milk and candy bars with crypto-coins is... well not feasible would be the polite way to put it if you still understand physics and the laws of thermodynamics. I think there are plenty of other reasons to ban crypto-currencies when we get to regulation and protecting consumers. It wouldn't take much for the governments of the world to shut the whole enterprise down and I think they should.
- DennisP 6y ago
  Ethereum's proof-of-stake has been running perfectly since it launched on Dec. 1, and has over $6 billion staked. They launched it as a parallel chain first, but it's going so well they've accelerated the plan to move the rest of the network to it. That's a relatively simple task and should happen in early 2022 at the latest, and possibly this fall. You can judge for yourself how hard it will be: https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/B1mUf6DXO https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/B1mUf6DXO
ur-whale 6y ago
> I think the main premise of this article is the fact that crypto's carbon emission is insane I disagree. The author of the article is the worst kind of statist there is, and many of his arguments fall in the "big brother ought to protect their poor defenseless citizens, whether they like it or not". The CO2 emission argument is just the icing on the cake.
hungryforcodes 6y ago
A bitcoin mining operation is effectively no different than say an Amazon or Microsoft data center. But no one ever talks about those or demonizes them. "The music video for “Despacito” set an Internet record in April 2018 when it became the first video to hit five billion views on YouTube. In the process, "Despacito" reached a less celebrated milestone: it burned as much energy as 40,000 U.S. homes use in a year." One youtube video. https://fortune.com/2019/09/18/internet-cloud-server-data-center-energy-consumption-renewable-coal/ https://fortune.com/2019/09/18/internet-cloud-server-data-ce... At the end of the day it comes down to where people want to put their energy allocations. Large scale Bitcoin and or cryptocurrency mining operations are mostly just other buildings with racks of computers.

hpoe 6y ago

Wasn't that posted like 2 days ago on HN already?

datafl4sh 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26623182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26623182
pmurt7 6y ago
Yeah the guy regularly posts his agenda on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=stephendiehl.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=stephendiehl.com

jtolds 6y ago

I came here to say this exact same thing. There is seriously interesting and useful real work being done under the umbrella term "decentralized finance" or DeFi. It is hard to cut through the noise of get rich quick schemes, but at the core, the DeFi stuff, built on top of green cryptocurrency (proof of stake), along with quickly improving zero-knowledge proof tech, is actually useful and groundbreaking. Bitcoin and proof of work should totally be banned.

christiansakai 6y ago
Indeed, the world of cyptocurrency/blockchain research has many ground breaking papers and news are often real time, even crypto news aggregator can't keep up with it. HN crowd refuses to care about it because of bad taste of crypto in general.
- jtolds 6y ago
  It's a bummer because zkRollups and their ilk in particular are flat out amazing new cryptographic constructions, but because they weren't developed by Schneier or Rivest or DJB, the wider programming industry is ignoring them.
- samvher 6y ago
  Do you have recommendations on where to find this stuff? I agree that there seems to be a lot of interesting work going on and the ideas of decentralized finance have a lot of potential. At the moment it really is hard to cut through the noise though and from what I can find just searching for an afternoon it looks like a minefield. I'm hoping that the bad stuff will all fade away and something useful will remain.
  - christiansakai 6y ago
    You can join each crypto's subreddits/youtube/twitter to find more. This is basically what crypto news aggregator do. They just read articles/watch youtube videos all day.
- DennisP 6y ago
  Could you link "crypto news aggregator" for us?
einpoklum 6y ago
I'm not sure. Do these DeFi schemes involve currencies which cannot be cancelled or created in large amounts by political decision (e.g. democratic)? If the answer is "yes", then these may be just another form of pyramid scheme, perhaps less taxing on the environment.
- jtolds 6y ago
  The answer is not yes, and there is clear evidence that cryptocurrencies are cancelled and created democratically. https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/03/23/legitimacy.html (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560626 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26560626) talks about the Steem/Hive split, and explains how the community democratically overrode the network owner's undemocratic decisions.
  - einpoklum 6y ago
    That Steem example is interesting. I wonder what the basis for the voting system they have there, though. Anyway, when you have a democratic (or otherwise subject to popular influence) institution which can do things like "print more money", forfeit some part of existing money, levy taxes etc. - then indeed it's an interesting and potentially positive-in-my-opinion cooperative pooling of resources. Of course then you have the opposite problem, which is the tyranny of the majority, but "you can't grab the rope at both ends".
salawat 6y ago
Proof of Stake is not inherently decentralized, you realize that, right? It'll trend toward centalization over time as coins end up getting delegated to the asset class equivalents of banks and brokers. They will pop up. Once they do, They will be regulated. Then you're back to square one.
- nbardy 6y ago
  And then you have a monetary system that runs a blockchain instead of this paper system the US has. Not everyone wants to take down banks or destroy fiat.
atweiden 6y ago
> I came here to say this exact same thing. There is seriously interesting and useful real work being done under the umbrella term "decentralized finance" or DeFi. It is hard to cut through the noise of get rich quick schemes, but at the core, the DeFi stuff, built on top of green cryptocurrency (proof of stake), along with quickly improving zero-knowledge proof tech, is actually useful and groundbreaking. The truth is that no one uses cryptocurrency for anything. Ethereum is just as much a speculative store of value as Bitcoin is, if not moreso given the numerous competitors it has to contend with — Bitcoin arguably has none. In a way, “speculative store of value” has merely been whitelabeled under the terms “digital gold” and “defi”. The people who claim increduously they’re buying ETH to do transactions are misrepresenting the situation to an extreme degree. > Bitcoin and proof of work should totally be banned. Where is your disclosure statement?

slibhb 6y ago

The main premise of the article is that cryptocurrencies are "speculation for speculation’s sake," i.e. gambling, and that's bad. Also, the article claims that they contribute to inequality. The green stuff is basically a side note. I don't think it's a terribly strong case but I suppose it depends on whether you agree that crypto is gambling and if you think gambling should banned. Anyway, I think lots of people stupidly speculate on things. I cast my vote by not speculating on those things. Should I be able to stop others from speculating?

christiansakai 6y ago
In conclusion, none of the points addressed in this article hold strong ground.
- maigret 6y ago
  Until the environmental problem is clearly solved, it still holds strong.
  - arcanon 6y ago
    What environmental problem? You mean creating additional incentives for new green energy investment? (Which is now the cheapest form of new energy...) “Environmentalists” need to be less myopic, you are holding us back.
api 6y ago
Most cryptocurrency activity is speculation, but so is a huge proportion of what happens on Wall St. Are we going to ban hedge funds? What about casinos or even worse state-backed lotteries? It's the same sort of hypocrisy as deplatforming Parler. While I did not weep for Parler, YouTube and Facebook are the largest platforms for alt-right/fascist propaganda. YouTube's "rabbit hole algorithm" is by far the most powerful engine of indoctrination, and while the most egregious stuff has mostly been kicked off the platform it's still full of "soft pill" fascist/racist material. I am not sure things like Qanon or the alt-right in general would even exist (to such a degree) were it not for YouTube. A ban or tax on proof of work mining is tempting but it would just offshore that activity. I suppose you could ban PoW cryptocurrencies but there are many alternatives. This is generally a shitty article.

purple_ferret 6y ago

There are many problems with Proof of Stake (inflation, centralization, etc). Cardano mainnet doesn't even exist yet. Smoke and mirrors.

christiansakai 6y ago
That remains to be seen. Ethereum has their own way of solving PoS weakness and Cardano has their own way. You need to read more.
svachalek 6y ago
Inflation and centralization are just as possible on PoW (see Binance Smart Chain) and just as easy to avoid on PoS. Cardano main net has been around a long time. It just doesn't support smart contracts yet.
djschnei 6y ago
Cardano mainnet doesn't exist? What?... The Mainnet has 2,289 active stake pool operators, which comes out to >99% decentralized, with 71.09% of the total ADA in circulation being actively staked on those pools ($26.83b/$37.7b). It has an incredibly active and healthy mainnet...
- kanwisher 6y ago
  With no smart contracts or actual usable functionality. Its just a chain with staking and nothing useful
  - djschnei 6y ago
    https://i.redd.it/9v8n8zaugjp61.jpg https://i.redd.it/9v8n8zaugjp61.jpg Nothing useful is a HUGE stretch - unless only smart contracts are 'useful'. The ecosystem is new but growing rapidly. Let's circle back to this comment in 1-2 months?

superkuh 6y ago

>This article should be re-titled "The Political Case for a Blanket Proof of Work Ban". I don't see the difference between that and "The Political Case for a Blanket Cryptocurrency Ban". The outcome is the same. Etherium has not proven proof of stake can work at scale. If it does that will be great. But it's no certain thing and it'll probably mean more Eth forks like Eth classic. Most other cryptocurrencies are tied to bitcoin's ecosystem to have value at all.

je_bailey 6y ago
To say that "Etherium has not proven proof of stake can work at scale" is true but means not a whole lot. Since it implies other's haven't. Cardano, as an example, will be 100% decentralized Proof of Stake within the next few hours. I see no reason at this point for bitcoins existence but the technology that's being built on top of blockchains is fascinating and shouldn't be condemned for something that bitcoin can't do.
- superkuh 6y ago
  It's disingenuous, or confusing to me at least, to present Cardano, a cryptocurrency started in 2017 I haven't even heard of, as proving the same thing as real used and tested cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin or Etherium.
DennisP 6y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by "at scale" but Ethereum's PoS currently has over $6 billion staked with over 100,000 validators, without any sort of delegation. The protocol is designed to handle a lot more validators without modification, and resource requirements on validators today are low.

louwrentius 6y ago

I think personally that proof of stake and proof of work both don’t matter in the end. I believe that all cryptocurrencies are at their heart scams. Proof of stake doesn’t change this dynamic. As I see it, cryptocurrencies doesn’t actually solve any real, significant problems we face as a (global) society. And to pick one important thing: they exclusively enable crypolocker randsomeware, and we know their devastating impact. Dollars are abused too, but the dollar gives so much back, our societies are based on it. I see no benefit to society of cryptocurrencies and I would really like to see them go. Nothing good has come from them. Zero.

runj__ 6y ago
"Scam" would indicate intent which I'd seriously think you'd be hard pressed to find behind the bitcoin white paper, it would be a really bad, slow scam if it included the number of steps where bitcoin would be where it is right now. I can put a virus on someone's computer and make them mail physical dollars or make dead-drops or whatever to remove it, ransomware is not a problem of cryptocurrency.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  Ransomware is entirely made possible due to cryptocurrencies. Your funny James Bond Scenario is just dishonest, you know this doesn’t scale and dead drops won’t protect you. The risk is too high.
ostenning 6y ago
Tell the people of Venezuela that. Cryptocurrencies have the ability to free people from broken dictatorial economies. While you may enjoy the benefits of a first world currency, check your privilege for just one moment and realise the world is much bigger than you would believe.
- lucian1900 6y ago
  Venezuela’s problems are due to US aggression and sanctions, not its fiat currency.

SavantIdiot 6y ago

Monero, Ravencoin, and Tether use a proof-of-work function that requires CPUs and defeats GPUs and ASICs, so there is an argument to be made that perhaps there is a slightly greener proof-of-work function. I don't quite understand how their function RandomX works, it requires a VM, lots of memory, and randomly generated work functions that need to be translated by the VM. Been hunting for a good page to explain this, but the point is: it aims to make mining more decentralized because the average user can still participate. I don't like proof of stake because again, the rich get richer in this scenario, which works against the decentralized core value of cryptocurrency.

tracedddd 6y ago
While that is the aim, I don’t find it convincing. Sure, the average person can mine, but the hashrate will be small compared to professionals with tens of thousands of units, purchased at special rates for bulk, with matching low energy rates. Or free energy in the case of botnet operators. In practice this just degrades to a situation very similar to ASICs, admittedly with the benefit that the hardware has a purpose beyond mining and with multiple (uninterested) manufacturers. In that way it is perhaps more decentralized, while also open to additional vulnerabilities. All in all it’s mostly just a way to differentiate from btc on a theoretical point rather than have any real advantage.

revel 6y ago

The big problem with the way that "cryptocurrencies" are talked about is that cryptocurrency is, at least in the mainstream vernacular, synonymous with bitcoin. Bitcoin is an outlier in terms of how it works and what it does. Most tokens sit on top of Ethereum and at this point it's probably more accurate to describe cryptocurrencies as being synonymous with ETH, not BTC. In my opinion regulatory action against PoW is all but inevitable. Ethereum is a platform, so there are powerful incentives to make it work more efficiently and use less power. Those plans are already well under way and, whenever Ethereum 2.0 gets launched, the power consumption of the crypto sector will drop dramatically and the network will be massively more powerful, attracting subsequent adoption. In this case, miners and developers have aligned interests. That's not the case for Bitcoin. Existing miners benefit from PoW, so I don't expect Bitcoin to migrate without some regulatory arm twisting.

agentultra 6y ago

I think part of the problem with believing that "at some undetermined point in the future, it will improve," is not a compelling argument against turning off crypto-currencies. From an emissions perspective Ethereum has been clinging to the belief that Proof-of-Stake is better, in theory, and is perennially, "just around the corner." In the mean time it has been and continues to run on Proof-of-Work and contributes in no small part to the environmental impact these crypto-coins have. Internal combustion engines are already really close to their peak efficiency vs emissions output and they still contribute a huge and growing amount to overall CO2 emissions. We need to design cities to curb the need for cars, replace as many as we can with electric, and design better, more accessible public transportation. Not seek more efficient internal combustion engines and promote their use. Crypto-currencies account for an abysmally small number of financial transactions in the world. Literally inconsequential. And they chewed up an astounding amount of energy in order to process them. To scale that up to a world where everyone buys their bread and milk and candy bars with crypto-coins is... well not feasible would be the polite way to put it if you still understand physics and the laws of thermodynamics. I think there are plenty of other reasons to ban crypto-currencies when we get to regulation and protecting consumers. It wouldn't take much for the governments of the world to shut the whole enterprise down and I think they should.

DennisP 6y ago
Ethereum's proof-of-stake has been running perfectly since it launched on Dec. 1, and has over $6 billion staked. They launched it as a parallel chain first, but it's going so well they've accelerated the plan to move the rest of the network to it. That's a relatively simple task and should happen in early 2022 at the latest, and possibly this fall. You can judge for yourself how hard it will be: https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/B1mUf6DXO https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/B1mUf6DXO

ur-whale 6y ago

> I think the main premise of this article is the fact that crypto's carbon emission is insane I disagree. The author of the article is the worst kind of statist there is, and many of his arguments fall in the "big brother ought to protect their poor defenseless citizens, whether they like it or not". The CO2 emission argument is just the icing on the cake.

hungryforcodes 6y ago

A bitcoin mining operation is effectively no different than say an Amazon or Microsoft data center. But no one ever talks about those or demonizes them. "The music video for “Despacito” set an Internet record in April 2018 when it became the first video to hit five billion views on YouTube. In the process, "Despacito" reached a less celebrated milestone: it burned as much energy as 40,000 U.S. homes use in a year." One youtube video. https://fortune.com/2019/09/18/internet-cloud-server-data-center-energy-consumption-renewable-coal/ https://fortune.com/2019/09/18/internet-cloud-server-data-ce... At the end of the day it comes down to where people want to put their energy allocations. Large scale Bitcoin and or cryptocurrency mining operations are mostly just other buildings with racks of computers.