4 ms·

There's really no excuse for this kind of strawman this late into the game. For one, Proof of work blockchains are migrating to first world countries which are

by toolz 5y ago

There's really no excuse for this kind of strawman this late into the game. For one, Proof of work blockchains are migrating to first world countries which are moving to renewable/nuclear energy quickly, so even if proof of work was the only consensus mechanism in the blockchain space, this sentiment would be horribly outdated and uninformed. Secondly, the vast majority of the market cap is in crypto that isn't proof of work. So the first point doesn't even matter. Even bitcoin is moving towards a layer2 solution with the lightening network that means the settlement layer won't continue to put more pressure on needing more and more wasted energy.

dnautics 5y ago
the way I see it, complaining about the environmental impact of blockchain is a bit like complaining that a early adopter's toyota prius' car has more of an environmental impact. Sure, that's strictly speaking true, but you are helping make a point - at expense to you - building investment in infrastructure that someday result in a vehicle that IS less of an impact. In the ideal case (which I am not necessarily optimistic will happen) we have a global currency that respects that there are finite resources on the planet, and doesn't require a belligerent military that goes around littering depleted uranium around the world to back its value. (fwiw, I'm working towards getting solar on my house and mining with my excess electricity)
jimbob45 5y ago
>Proof of work blockchains are migrating to first world countries The whole point of blockchains is that everyone has a copy. I don't understand why you think they're migrating unless you don't want third-world countries using blockchains.
- toolz 5y ago
  It doesn't matter what you or I want - I'm stating facts. and the fact is that technology is solving the dirty energy problem and miners are moving to cheap energy solutions because clean energy is cheaper.
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    No, put the energy stuff aside - I'm only concerned with learning what you mean by saying it's migrating to the first-world.
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
      The mining is migrating — as in the production of new blocks. The actual blockchain is free open and available to everyone in the world, with a computer and internet connection. It is not an exclusive technology for rich nations.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > I don't understand why you think they're migrating unless you don't want third-world countries using blockchains. It has nothing to do with "want[ing] third-world countries using blockchains" He means that more of the mining is taking place -due to natural market incentives- in 1st world countries. 1st world countries have "greener" energy production than not 1st world countries, so this is an environmental improvement
gitfan86 5y ago
This is my biggest problem with crypto. It is all about how in the future all these problems will be solved. I've been hearing about how it is the future 'of micro payments', or 'the future gold', or 'the future of legal contracts'. You are saying the energy usage problem will be solved by 'moving towards a layer2', in the future. https://www.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-tells-us-why-bitcoin-matters-2014-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-tells-us-why...
- hunterb123 5y ago
  That's not what he said. Lightning network is now and has been. Proof of stake is now. ETH2 has $5+ billion staked on it. Many ETH competitors are out there that are pure PoS. It's an outplayed talking point that gets more irrelevant with each passing day. To the topic of Zulip, I find it funny they aren't on the crypto bandwagon but they are on the talking point bandwagon of crypto must be for criminals, anti-environmentalists, or scammers. Those are the only 3 points. Whew, you'd think it was 2010.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > It is all about how in the future all these problems will be solved. Is this not all of technology in entirety?
  - gitfan86 5y ago
    No. When google launched it was really good. It solved slow web searches immediately. Did it get better over time? Yes. But it didn't launch and claim that "in the future google will return results for billions of searches within milliseconds", and then keep claiming that for years
- menzoic 5y ago
  As already stated the vast majority of crypto today is on proof of stake which has no energy concerns. And of course you'll always hear about the future when it comes to ground breaking tech. I'm sure you also always hear about the future of AI
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
paulgb 5y ago
> Secondly, the vast majority of the market cap is in crypto that isn't proof of work. Source? I haven’t added up the long tail but this seems dubious given the dominance of bitcoin/ethereum. > Even bitcoin is moving towards a layer2 solution with the lightening network that means the settlement layer won't continue to put more pressure on needing more and more wasted energy. Layer 2 doesn’t solve this. Only ~2% of the rewards that compensate miners come from transaction fees. At best, layer 2 could cut out that 2% of incentives.
- teraflop 5y ago
  > Source? I haven’t added up the long tail but this seems dubious given the dominance of bitcoin/ethereum. I'm skeptical that such a calculation could even be meaningfully performed. The long tail of cryptocurrencies includes a great many whose volumes are so low that "market cap" becomes a nebulous concept.

by toolz 5y ago

dnautics 5y ago

the way I see it, complaining about the environmental impact of blockchain is a bit like complaining that a early adopter's toyota prius' car has more of an environmental impact. Sure, that's strictly speaking true, but you are helping make a point - at expense to you - building investment in infrastructure that someday result in a vehicle that IS less of an impact. In the ideal case (which I am not necessarily optimistic will happen) we have a global currency that respects that there are finite resources on the planet, and doesn't require a belligerent military that goes around littering depleted uranium around the world to back its value. (fwiw, I'm working towards getting solar on my house and mining with my excess electricity)

jimbob45 5y ago

>Proof of work blockchains are migrating to first world countries The whole point of blockchains is that everyone has a copy. I don't understand why you think they're migrating unless you don't want third-world countries using blockchains.

toolz 5y ago
It doesn't matter what you or I want - I'm stating facts. and the fact is that technology is solving the dirty energy problem and miners are moving to cheap energy solutions because clean energy is cheaper.
- jimbob45 5y ago
  No, put the energy stuff aside - I'm only concerned with learning what you mean by saying it's migrating to the first-world.
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    The mining is migrating — as in the production of new blocks. The actual blockchain is free open and available to everyone in the world, with a computer and internet connection. It is not an exclusive technology for rich nations.
vineyardmike 5y ago
> I don't understand why you think they're migrating unless you don't want third-world countries using blockchains. It has nothing to do with "want[ing] third-world countries using blockchains" He means that more of the mining is taking place -due to natural market incentives- in 1st world countries. 1st world countries have "greener" energy production than not 1st world countries, so this is an environmental improvement

gitfan86 5y ago

This is my biggest problem with crypto. It is all about how in the future all these problems will be solved. I've been hearing about how it is the future 'of micro payments', or 'the future gold', or 'the future of legal contracts'. You are saying the energy usage problem will be solved by 'moving towards a layer2', in the future. https://www.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-tells-us-why-bitcoin-matters-2014-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-tells-us-why...

hunterb123 5y ago
That's not what he said. Lightning network is now and has been. Proof of stake is now. ETH2 has $5+ billion staked on it. Many ETH competitors are out there that are pure PoS. It's an outplayed talking point that gets more irrelevant with each passing day. To the topic of Zulip, I find it funny they aren't on the crypto bandwagon but they are on the talking point bandwagon of crypto must be for criminals, anti-environmentalists, or scammers. Those are the only 3 points. Whew, you'd think it was 2010.
vineyardmike 5y ago
> It is all about how in the future all these problems will be solved. Is this not all of technology in entirety?
- gitfan86 5y ago
  No. When google launched it was really good. It solved slow web searches immediately. Did it get better over time? Yes. But it didn't launch and claim that "in the future google will return results for billions of searches within milliseconds", and then keep claiming that for years
menzoic 5y ago
As already stated the vast majority of crypto today is on proof of stake which has no energy concerns. And of course you'll always hear about the future when it comes to ground breaking tech. I'm sure you also always hear about the future of AI

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

paulgb 5y ago

> Secondly, the vast majority of the market cap is in crypto that isn't proof of work. Source? I haven’t added up the long tail but this seems dubious given the dominance of bitcoin/ethereum. > Even bitcoin is moving towards a layer2 solution with the lightening network that means the settlement layer won't continue to put more pressure on needing more and more wasted energy. Layer 2 doesn’t solve this. Only ~2% of the rewards that compensate miners come from transaction fees. At best, layer 2 could cut out that 2% of incentives.

teraflop 5y ago
> Source? I haven’t added up the long tail but this seems dubious given the dominance of bitcoin/ethereum. I'm skeptical that such a calculation could even be meaningfully performed. The long tail of cryptocurrencies includes a great many whose volumes are so low that "market cap" becomes a nebulous concept.