4 ms·
I think there are a number of fallacies in this white paper. For one, energy consumed by pow is just spent energy, it does not contribute to societal developmen
by theK 5y ago
I think there are a number of fallacies in this white paper. For one, energy consumed by pow is just spent energy, it does not contribute to societal development. Also, this sort of consumer specific investment disregards society because it disregards where society needs the energy (since society is not the target group).
On another hand, this whole paper seems very short sighted and rand-ish. The fact of the matter is that the only effect that scaling PoW more will have is scorching the earth, so why not just invest in tech that actually can make a difference like all the working PoS projects?
- reginold 5y ago> energy consumed by pow is just spent energy, it does not contribute to societal development Can you explain more about what you mean by this? Would the same apply to a gallon of gas burned in a car for example?
- bloqs 5y agoProof of work is computing. Like any computing, like your home PC or laptop, running an application costs electricity, and perhaps slightly warms its nearby vicinity. A gallon of gas or a battery in a car may have a similar impact. A gallon of gas may have further negative externalities like the destruction of the atmosphere etc.
- ashtonkem 5y agoBut a gallon of gas does something useful; it enables someone to be mobile and go about their daily activities. Bitcoin is fundamentally a casino. It’s only legitimate function is betting on a number that’s not connected with anything else, also known as gambling. The energy we spend there does much less for a society than allowing people to move around and go about their daily lives.
- reginold 5y agoAh yes, if bitcoin is useless them by definition all the energy is waste. That "if is important. It all comes down to "what is the value of bitcoin".
- ashtonkem 5y agoNot what is the value of bitcoin, what is the use of bitcoin. What function does it fill for a society in order to justify the energy expenditure? Manipulating a dollar value of something is apparently trivial to do, just look at the wild fluctuations in bitcoins price. So far the resounding answer has been “number go up”. Well, that and crime if we’re being honest.
- theK 5y agoI'm pretty sure he is trolling... It is evident by now that the energy fueling bitcoin should better be used otherwise.
- reginold 5y agoJust to clarify, not trolling. For those who think Bitcoin has zero value, then by definition all the energy is waste. For those that think Bitcoin has value, then the energy is by definition not waste and it's a question of utility, what is the energy usage of what it's replacing.
- ddsaso 5y agoI noticed that you've asked a couple folks in this thread on their thoughts around that Square memo, digging a bit more into their thoughts. Wondering if there's something specific you're trying to understand around people's thoughts?
- theK 5y agoWell, you need to compare the societal impact one BTC tx has vs the societal impact the equivalent energy consumption in mobility (you example) has. If my calculations aren't off, a bitcoin tx is the equivalent of your days mobility assuming a suburban commute in an EV and all externalities (groceries, kids etc) so yeah, investing that energy in being mobile makes more sense than doing btc txs