3 ms·

It is only outrageous if you don't understand why we spend the energy on security. Decentralization is an expensive endeavor. Centralized solutions are generall

It is only outrageous if you don't understand why we spend the energy on security. Decentralization is an expensive endeavor. Centralized solutions are generally cheaper in every way. Bitcoiners believe that energy is essential for the security of the chain, to ensure it is decentralized and censorship resistant. When and if you come to understand this, you see growing energy usage as a good thing, infact, the best thing. It is too simple to think of it as 'energy per tx', this is a bad metric, and illogical. One must consider the energy being used to secure every block and transaction that came before it in an externally observable fashion.

atoav 5y ago
> When and if you come to understand this, you see growing energy usage as a good thing, infact, the best thing. I guess that depends on whether one values decentralization of currency higher than other topics like e.g. climate change/the survival of the human race/biodiversity etc. Bitcoin depends on a proof of work, so unsurprisingly energy usage is a natural property of the thing. It is literally a answer to the question which resource is scarce/limited in the digital domain.
- rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
  The enemies of decentralization will use things like "climate change" as an excuse against PoW. I personally believe that arguments against using energy are ridiculous. Humans will be using 100x the energy we use today in 20 years. However I do believe we should do it as cleanly as possible! Solar, Wind, Geothermal -- all good! Trying to limit how humans spend energy is like trying to dictate what they will eat for lunch. All we can do is generate that energy cleanly, safely. Energy usage itself should be an orthogonal issue to climate change -- indeed, for the survival of human race we need to spend lots of energy, as cleanly as possible!
  - atoav 5y ago
    Your statement frames this, as if there wasn't extensive studies done precisely on these questions. It is a very comforting believe that we just can make our energy systems greener, our houses/machines more efficient, spend energy however we like and we somehow manage to maintain a liveable planet or reach our (quite unambitious) climate goals, but it is also wrong. And I really wish it wouldn't be. Sorry for not having the time to cite some studies here, but I assure you that your statement sounds overly optimistic or maybe even naive to anybody who has insight into current climate science.

atoav 5y ago

> When and if you come to understand this, you see growing energy usage as a good thing, infact, the best thing. I guess that depends on whether one values decentralization of currency higher than other topics like e.g. climate change/the survival of the human race/biodiversity etc. Bitcoin depends on a proof of work, so unsurprisingly energy usage is a natural property of the thing. It is literally a answer to the question which resource is scarce/limited in the digital domain.

rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
The enemies of decentralization will use things like "climate change" as an excuse against PoW. I personally believe that arguments against using energy are ridiculous. Humans will be using 100x the energy we use today in 20 years. However I do believe we should do it as cleanly as possible! Solar, Wind, Geothermal -- all good! Trying to limit how humans spend energy is like trying to dictate what they will eat for lunch. All we can do is generate that energy cleanly, safely. Energy usage itself should be an orthogonal issue to climate change -- indeed, for the survival of human race we need to spend lots of energy, as cleanly as possible!
- atoav 5y ago
  Your statement frames this, as if there wasn't extensive studies done precisely on these questions. It is a very comforting believe that we just can make our energy systems greener, our houses/machines more efficient, spend energy however we like and we somehow manage to maintain a liveable planet or reach our (quite unambitious) climate goals, but it is also wrong. And I really wish it wouldn't be. Sorry for not having the time to cite some studies here, but I assure you that your statement sounds overly optimistic or maybe even naive to anybody who has insight into current climate science.