3 ms·

> using underutilized existing space, not space from new drives Chia is basically turning wasting electricity into wasting silicium (or whatever tapes/harddriv

by 317070 5y ago

> using underutilized existing space, not space from new drives Chia is basically turning wasting electricity into wasting silicium (or whatever tapes/harddrives are made from). Because this "space" needs to be created as well. I don't really see how that is less wasteful in the long run.

Glench 5y ago
Well I mean the market for hard drives is already over 1 zettabyte a year so it seems a little ridiculous to make that comparison without taking into context the whole picture. Although yes, you're right, some resource needs to be consumed for any blockchain or database to work — in this case it's storage space (not necessarily hard drives). To my mind, Chia puts existing underutilized space to work so it's not really wasting anything. The data seems to support that conclusion in the report I linked.
- 317070 5y ago
  Some resource needs to be consumed, but we have payment systems that are currently multiple orders of magnitude more efficient than Bitcoin or Chia, so that is kind of a baseline. (Think Visa or Mastercard) Secondly, Chia is a small coin, it did not make a dent in the global market yet. I can believe that so far nobody really bothered to invest in storage. However, imagine Chia would be as large as say Bitcoin, then Chinese Chia miners would be filling warehouses with tape drives to the effect of millions per year. The costs they are now making burning electricity would be replaced by the same cost at installing computer memory of some kind. Compared to the current financial system that is really wasteful. But even as compared to most existing proof-of-work crypto, it is arguably more damaging to the environment as there are more toxic chemicals involved in tape than in burning electricity. Overall, you traded wasting time for wasting space. I do not see how that is helpful.
  - Glench 5y ago
    > Some resource needs to be consumed, but we have payment systems that are currently multiple orders of magnitude more efficient than Bitcoin or Chia, so that is kind of a baseline. (Think Visa or Mastercard) Well yeah, but blockchains obviously offer different benefits/drawbacks than those platforms which is why they exist. > Secondly, Chia is a small coin, it did not make a dent in the global market yet. I can believe that so far nobody really bothered to invest in storage. There are currently 30 EiB of storage securing the network which is about 3% of the total storage market sold every year and a much higher percentage of the retail HDD market. Chia also has significantly more full nodes than Bitcoin. And it's only been out for a few months. > it is arguably more damaging to the environment as there are more toxic chemicals involved in tape than in burning electricity. Tape drives don't work with Chia. But you're speculating about an environmental impact that is already happening today with hard drives. Maybe you should send a letter to Google or your local politician about the environmental impact of their hard drives if you're actually concerned about that :)
  - matheusmoreira 5y ago
    > we have payment systems that are currently multiple orders of magnitude more efficient than Bitcoin or Chia, so that is kind of a baseline. (Think Visa or Mastercard) Credit cards offer none of the desirable properties found in many cyptocurrencies such as decentralization, privacy, security, full custody of funds... It makes little sense to compare the two, especially in terms of "efficiency".
    - 317070 5y ago
      It does. I am trading off decentralization, privacy, security, ... with (for Bitcoin) more than how much energy I would use in a year and CO2 I would use in a life, per transaction. They do offer a comparable product, and you need to compare their upsides and downsides.
      - matheusmoreira 5y ago
        Not really. It is a tradeoff but you can't really compare their efficiency because they don't provide the same features. Credit cards provide none of the properties provided by cryptocurrencies. You're looking at the cost of transactions. You're not looking at the cost of private anonymous trustless decentralized uncensorable unsanctionable irreversible transactions. I think bitcoin is a waste of resources because it failed as a cryptocurrency. I wouldn't mind even larger amounts of resources being poured into better coins like XMR though. I don't care how much energy it requires, those properties are just too valuable.
c01n 5y ago
> Chia is basically turning wasting electricity into wasting silicium (or whatever tapes/harddrives are made from). Does this apply to filecoin?
bitcurious 5y ago
> Chia is basically turning wasting electricity into wasting silicium (or whatever tapes/harddrives are made from). That depends on the price of chia. The economics as intended by the chia team are that buying hdd just to farm chia isn’t profitable - only using spare capacity is. We’re already pretty close to that point, with the breakeven on new hdd purchases being about 1 year assuming no further network growth, which of course is a bad assumption.

by 317070 5y ago

Glench 5y ago

Well I mean the market for hard drives is already over 1 zettabyte a year so it seems a little ridiculous to make that comparison without taking into context the whole picture. Although yes, you're right, some resource needs to be consumed for any blockchain or database to work — in this case it's storage space (not necessarily hard drives). To my mind, Chia puts existing underutilized space to work so it's not really wasting anything. The data seems to support that conclusion in the report I linked.

317070 5y ago
Some resource needs to be consumed, but we have payment systems that are currently multiple orders of magnitude more efficient than Bitcoin or Chia, so that is kind of a baseline. (Think Visa or Mastercard) Secondly, Chia is a small coin, it did not make a dent in the global market yet. I can believe that so far nobody really bothered to invest in storage. However, imagine Chia would be as large as say Bitcoin, then Chinese Chia miners would be filling warehouses with tape drives to the effect of millions per year. The costs they are now making burning electricity would be replaced by the same cost at installing computer memory of some kind. Compared to the current financial system that is really wasteful. But even as compared to most existing proof-of-work crypto, it is arguably more damaging to the environment as there are more toxic chemicals involved in tape than in burning electricity. Overall, you traded wasting time for wasting space. I do not see how that is helpful.
- Glench 5y ago
  > Some resource needs to be consumed, but we have payment systems that are currently multiple orders of magnitude more efficient than Bitcoin or Chia, so that is kind of a baseline. (Think Visa or Mastercard) Well yeah, but blockchains obviously offer different benefits/drawbacks than those platforms which is why they exist. > Secondly, Chia is a small coin, it did not make a dent in the global market yet. I can believe that so far nobody really bothered to invest in storage. There are currently 30 EiB of storage securing the network which is about 3% of the total storage market sold every year and a much higher percentage of the retail HDD market. Chia also has significantly more full nodes than Bitcoin. And it's only been out for a few months. > it is arguably more damaging to the environment as there are more toxic chemicals involved in tape than in burning electricity. Tape drives don't work with Chia. But you're speculating about an environmental impact that is already happening today with hard drives. Maybe you should send a letter to Google or your local politician about the environmental impact of their hard drives if you're actually concerned about that :)
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  > we have payment systems that are currently multiple orders of magnitude more efficient than Bitcoin or Chia, so that is kind of a baseline. (Think Visa or Mastercard) Credit cards offer none of the desirable properties found in many cyptocurrencies such as decentralization, privacy, security, full custody of funds... It makes little sense to compare the two, especially in terms of "efficiency".
  - 317070 5y ago
    It does. I am trading off decentralization, privacy, security, ... with (for Bitcoin) more than how much energy I would use in a year and CO2 I would use in a life, per transaction. They do offer a comparable product, and you need to compare their upsides and downsides.
    - matheusmoreira 5y ago
      Not really. It is a tradeoff but you can't really compare their efficiency because they don't provide the same features. Credit cards provide none of the properties provided by cryptocurrencies. You're looking at the cost of transactions. You're not looking at the cost of private anonymous trustless decentralized uncensorable unsanctionable irreversible transactions. I think bitcoin is a waste of resources because it failed as a cryptocurrency. I wouldn't mind even larger amounts of resources being poured into better coins like XMR though. I don't care how much energy it requires, those properties are just too valuable.

c01n 5y ago

> Chia is basically turning wasting electricity into wasting silicium (or whatever tapes/harddrives are made from). Does this apply to filecoin?

bitcurious 5y ago

> Chia is basically turning wasting electricity into wasting silicium (or whatever tapes/harddrives are made from). That depends on the price of chia. The economics as intended by the chia team are that buying hdd just to farm chia isn’t profitable - only using spare capacity is. We’re already pretty close to that point, with the breakeven on new hdd purchases being about 1 year assuming no further network growth, which of course is a bad assumption.