4 ms·

I think thats a pretty big assumption. What about rooftop solar?...if excess energy was used to mine btc. You would have incentive for solar adoption and the

I think thats a pretty big assumption. What about rooftop solar?...if excess energy was used to mine btc. You would have incentive for solar adoption and the most fair and distributed system possible. Not saying this is how it goes but there's possibilities out there that can make sense. Also has anyone actually looked at the btc energy usage as a percentage of global energy usage? Its a pimple and that rate does not increase with userbase it increases with coin value which will hit a plateau.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Rooftop solar, nuclear, coal, oil, hydro - literally NONE of this matters. The whole thing about proof-of-work is that it serves as a way to prove that a particular miner spent some amount of money (in the form of energy costs) validating a transaction. As the value of Bitcoin increases, then, it means there is more incentive to throw energy at the problem, because the reward you get for mining (or, for that matter, for a chain attack) is worth more. There is no way to get out of the proof-of-work problem by deploying cheaper or more abundant forms of energy, because, again by design, it just means that any miner would need to use more of that cheaper form of energy to validate a transaction.
- trident5000 5y ago
  The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not. Im in the do not think its a waste camp. And as mentioned above, the hash rate is not an infinite black hole, it levels off as the price levels off regardless of userbase.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    > The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm making no judgment at all as to whether validating transactions is a good use of energy. > And as mentioned above, the hash rate is not an infinite black hole, it levels off as the price levels off regardless of userbase. Exactly, and your statement here 100% proves my point. Since the total number of Bitcoins is fixed, the only 2 options are (1) "the price levels off" as you put it - but the only way (long term) for the price to level off, when supply is restricted, is for demand to eventually wane. The other option (2) is for Bitcoin to eventually become a sizable portion of the financial system, in which case it's energy demands will grow proportionally. The point I'm trying to emphasize is that Bitcoin backers' position is not possibly consistent: either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus, in which case it means usage of Bitcoin will have plateaued as well. There is no middle option.
    - trident5000 5y ago
      > either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus Again thats not how it works. Energy usage does not grow in proportion with transactions. It grows in proportion to hash rate which is a function of market capitalization value. I can assure you the MC of bitcoin is not going to grow exponentially infinitely because that is a physical impossibility.
      - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
        Again, you keep proving my point. Yes, you are absolutely correct, energy usage is a function of market cap. But my point is that if people actually start using Bitcoin to facilitate transactions (instead of its primary purpose of a speculative asset as it exists today) then its market cap would explode. And again, this has been what Bitcoin proponents have been arguing forever now - that the time to "get in" is now, because once it starts being used for "real commerce", demand will soar. There is just no getting around the fact that the more "popular" Bitcoin gets ("popularity" eventually has to show up in market cap) that its energy use will grow in lock step.
        trident5000 5y ago
        No, I dont think I am. You specifically said “in proportion” to transaction volume, not as a non linear residual effect. That is an incorrect growth assumption. And frankly you’re editing your answers above too fast for me to keep up with.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    > The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not. That's not the only issue, another is how BC did not really deliver on what it originally promised. Instead, the whole cryptomarket seems to have simply turned a massive speculative market with more manipulation going on than any other financial market. So all these high and noble goals crypto originally started out on, have turned into a whole bunch of people just trying to make the largest profits, even if that means defrauding a whole bunch of people of their savings.
    - trident5000 5y ago
      I think twitter announced bitcoin tipping last week and we have nations adopting it as a national currency (both wide scale implementations). I dont know how you can arrive at a "non delivery" conclusion.
      - freeflight 5y ago
        El Salvador adopted BC as an official legal tender, the first and only country to do so. Meanwhile, around the same time, China dropped it wholesale. El Salvador has 6 million people, China has around 1.4 billion people.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  > Rooftop solar, nuclear, coal, oil, hydro - literally NONE of this matters .. as long as the Carbon-centric economy grows, food-miles continue, the high-end leisure hotel market gets subsidy and wasteful wars continue to literally kill and maim as well as use yet more fossil fuel, yes, agree.. none of that matters meanwhile, viva crypto

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Rooftop solar, nuclear, coal, oil, hydro - literally NONE of this matters. The whole thing about proof-of-work is that it serves as a way to prove that a particular miner spent some amount of money (in the form of energy costs) validating a transaction. As the value of Bitcoin increases, then, it means there is more incentive to throw energy at the problem, because the reward you get for mining (or, for that matter, for a chain attack) is worth more. There is no way to get out of the proof-of-work problem by deploying cheaper or more abundant forms of energy, because, again by design, it just means that any miner would need to use more of that cheaper form of energy to validate a transaction.

trident5000 5y ago
The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not. Im in the do not think its a waste camp. And as mentioned above, the hash rate is not an infinite black hole, it levels off as the price levels off regardless of userbase.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  > The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm making no judgment at all as to whether validating transactions is a good use of energy. > And as mentioned above, the hash rate is not an infinite black hole, it levels off as the price levels off regardless of userbase. Exactly, and your statement here 100% proves my point. Since the total number of Bitcoins is fixed, the only 2 options are (1) "the price levels off" as you put it - but the only way (long term) for the price to level off, when supply is restricted, is for demand to eventually wane. The other option (2) is for Bitcoin to eventually become a sizable portion of the financial system, in which case it's energy demands will grow proportionally. The point I'm trying to emphasize is that Bitcoin backers' position is not possibly consistent: either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus, in which case it means usage of Bitcoin will have plateaued as well. There is no middle option.
  - trident5000 5y ago
    > either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus Again thats not how it works. Energy usage does not grow in proportion with transactions. It grows in proportion to hash rate which is a function of market capitalization value. I can assure you the MC of bitcoin is not going to grow exponentially infinitely because that is a physical impossibility.
    - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
      Again, you keep proving my point. Yes, you are absolutely correct, energy usage is a function of market cap. But my point is that if people actually start using Bitcoin to facilitate transactions (instead of its primary purpose of a speculative asset as it exists today) then its market cap would explode. And again, this has been what Bitcoin proponents have been arguing forever now - that the time to "get in" is now, because once it starts being used for "real commerce", demand will soar. There is just no getting around the fact that the more "popular" Bitcoin gets ("popularity" eventually has to show up in market cap) that its energy use will grow in lock step.
      - trident5000 5y ago
        No, I dont think I am. You specifically said “in proportion” to transaction volume, not as a non linear residual effect. That is an incorrect growth assumption. And frankly you’re editing your answers above too fast for me to keep up with.
- freeflight 5y ago
  > The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not. That's not the only issue, another is how BC did not really deliver on what it originally promised. Instead, the whole cryptomarket seems to have simply turned a massive speculative market with more manipulation going on than any other financial market. So all these high and noble goals crypto originally started out on, have turned into a whole bunch of people just trying to make the largest profits, even if that means defrauding a whole bunch of people of their savings.
  - trident5000 5y ago
    I think twitter announced bitcoin tipping last week and we have nations adopting it as a national currency (both wide scale implementations). I dont know how you can arrive at a "non delivery" conclusion.
    - freeflight 5y ago
      El Salvador adopted BC as an official legal tender, the first and only country to do so. Meanwhile, around the same time, China dropped it wholesale. El Salvador has 6 million people, China has around 1.4 billion people.
mistrial9 5y ago
> Rooftop solar, nuclear, coal, oil, hydro - literally NONE of this matters .. as long as the Carbon-centric economy grows, food-miles continue, the high-end leisure hotel market gets subsidy and wasteful wars continue to literally kill and maim as well as use yet more fossil fuel, yes, agree.. none of that matters meanwhile, viva crypto