8 ms·

It's burning electricity (that could in an ideal world be renewable, maybe one day) to provide a service to the network, therefore making it more secure by prov

It's burning electricity (that could in an ideal world be renewable, maybe one day) to provide a service to the network, therefore making it more secure by providing additional processing capacity that is controlled by a good actor, making it harder for a bad actor to get 51% of the pie. It is a waste, but there are also a lot of other sources of wasted resources/energy that we could tackle first and get larger returns from. You get compensated for your service, it may seem like a lottery, but if you do it for a long enough time, you'll get fairly steady returns as in theory it should be random and proportional to your hashrate. I don't mine, and I think it's definitely overhyped at the moment, but maybe it will settle in the future and actually provide a useful service to us folk. It doesn't seem to be going away for now, and it is really easy to send money to friends and family, whether they're nextdoor or in another country.

inter_netuser 5y ago
It is not a waste, as it provides physical security, exactly the same as idle nuclear missiles on standby do, or standing armies that are "doing nothing", until a war happens. The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+), because it is actually cheaper. Dishwashers and heated swimming pools use WAY more energy globally, but because pleasant luxuries are quite enjoyable, nobody seems to attack them.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > It is not a waste, as it provides physical security, exactly the same as idle nuclear missiles on standby do, or standing armies that are "doing nothing", until a war happens. You don't think those get very wasteful in the real world? And there's no equivalent to a real war situation. You can set it up so you don't need to defend against the equivalent of enemy armies. > The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+), because it is actually cheaper. What kind of sustainable? When miners locate next to hydro, and buy it up, that doesn't help anything. That hydro could have been sold as somewhat less cheap power elsewhere, after going over long wires, and then it would have reduced the load on coal plants. Miners that eat up excess solar can theoretically do a lot to encourage the installation of solar, but they need to be happy letting their machines be turned off a large fraction of the time. If it's still profitable to run 20 hours a day, then they're still encouraging fossil power plants. > Dishwashers and heated swimming pools use WAY more energy globally, but because pleasant luxuries are quite enjoyable, nobody seems to attack them. Dishwashers are better than hand-washing, aren't they? Having plates is a lot more important than running cryptocurrencies in a particular way. If heated swimming pools use that much, then sure let's go after that and use some kind of billing or taxes so they pay extra and encourage sustainable power sources.
  - inter_netuser 5y ago
    I disagree that standing armies and nuclear weapons are a waste. They guarantee your security, which you seem to take for granted. Your views on this could change if you spend a few years in a warzone under artillery fire. It is of course not 100% perfect analogy, nothing is, but I believe you understood the point I tried to get across: it's a security service, and that costs money. Blackwater stationary guard roles are 180-220k a year for someone with years of experience. I'd imagine monetary networks use a lot of physical security, some central banks are literally located in bunkers under mountains, with a backup site in a similar setup on a different geological plate. I have not seen any PoS schemes so far that provide anything other than plutocracy as a service. There is a reason why ETH with a 100mil R&D budget is still on PoW, Vitalik is not a dummy. as for the cheap sources of sustainable energy, those are usually stranded hydro and wind that's too remote to be economic, and stranded natgas (for natgas "green" might be a better term, i've used sustainable in the sense that CH4 is far more damaging that CO2. I've been told by regulators it is actually better to burn off CH4 from stranded wells) Balancing of the grid also does happen, but I believe primarily with wind and hydro. I, of course, agree that we should not pollute the Earth we live on. High energy usage in itself is not bad, only if it's a harmful polluter. I've only pointed out dishwashers and pools (don't have the stats handy, but they do indeed use a lot more, like a magnitude more), as a common hypocrisy. We must rapidly scale up non-polluting energy sources, as it seems unlikely humanity can become a spacefaring species on a self-imposed tight energy budget, and this self-imposed handicap coupled with an unexpected asteroid impact can end us.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      Pools in the US use 14 billion kwh it's hard to imagine it being even global orders of magnitude more than Bitcoin. It's also hard to see how push button Armageddon has possibly made us more safe than nobody having nukes. We are only more safe than if only our enemies had them. The same could even be said of armies.
  - keymone 5y ago
    There is zero waste in PoW. It’s all useful service, therefore waste term doesn’t apply.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > standing armies that are "doing nothing" Armies have to practice. Smart generals don't let their armies do nothing; to be any good at warfighting, they have to fight wars. Effective standing armies have to constantly be finding new wars to fight.
  - keymone 5y ago
    Nice to see you rationalizing expenditure that goes towards murdering people. Are you the people talking down to bitcoiners about being wasteful and not caring about future of humanity? Give me a break.
    - codyb 5y ago
      How many people aren’t murdered because of armies though? Humans have been grouping and fighting each other for thousands of years now. You’re under the impression everyone should just… what… pretend it doesn’t happen? When attacking a neighbor state costs more (because your neighbors have arms too), it’s less likely to happen. The cold war had plenty of awful hot action with proxies and third parties but the entirely hot version obviously would have been far more calamitous. I suggest reading Herodotus’ Histories, or you can read up on Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Alexander, the Crusades, or the myriad other conquerors and conflicts that have occurred.
      - keymone 5y ago
        But when conflict is resolved by energy expenditure, it involves even less suffering.
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      I was presenting a case against large standing armies!
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  > The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+) Do you have an source for this? I remember the same number being flaunted before but it turned out not to be true. What was true was that 70%+ of miners use any amount of renewables in their energy mix.
  - keymone 5y ago
    You’re right. The correct number is somewhere around 50%, probably over the line already, which is significantly better than any other big industry.
    - newswasboring 5y ago
      > The correct number is somewhere around 50% Do you have some source for this? I see random numbers being thrown around a lot, would be nice to have a citation for yours.
      - keymone 5y ago
        https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021.07.01-BMC-Q2-2021-Materials.pdf https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/...
Magnusmaster 5y ago
The service is worthless if you can trust a central authority like a government that 99.99% of people do.
- yowlingcat 5y ago
  There are many countries where people cannot trust a central authority like a government to keep their savings remotely safe and stable in value.
  - Magnusmaster 5y ago
    Even in those cases you can use dollars and trust the US government

inter_netuser 5y ago

It is not a waste, as it provides physical security, exactly the same as idle nuclear missiles on standby do, or standing armies that are "doing nothing", until a war happens. The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+), because it is actually cheaper. Dishwashers and heated swimming pools use WAY more energy globally, but because pleasant luxuries are quite enjoyable, nobody seems to attack them.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> It is not a waste, as it provides physical security, exactly the same as idle nuclear missiles on standby do, or standing armies that are "doing nothing", until a war happens. You don't think those get very wasteful in the real world? And there's no equivalent to a real war situation. You can set it up so you don't need to defend against the equivalent of enemy armies. > The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+), because it is actually cheaper. What kind of sustainable? When miners locate next to hydro, and buy it up, that doesn't help anything. That hydro could have been sold as somewhat less cheap power elsewhere, after going over long wires, and then it would have reduced the load on coal plants. Miners that eat up excess solar can theoretically do a lot to encourage the installation of solar, but they need to be happy letting their machines be turned off a large fraction of the time. If it's still profitable to run 20 hours a day, then they're still encouraging fossil power plants. > Dishwashers and heated swimming pools use WAY more energy globally, but because pleasant luxuries are quite enjoyable, nobody seems to attack them. Dishwashers are better than hand-washing, aren't they? Having plates is a lot more important than running cryptocurrencies in a particular way. If heated swimming pools use that much, then sure let's go after that and use some kind of billing or taxes so they pay extra and encourage sustainable power sources.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  I disagree that standing armies and nuclear weapons are a waste. They guarantee your security, which you seem to take for granted. Your views on this could change if you spend a few years in a warzone under artillery fire. It is of course not 100% perfect analogy, nothing is, but I believe you understood the point I tried to get across: it's a security service, and that costs money. Blackwater stationary guard roles are 180-220k a year for someone with years of experience. I'd imagine monetary networks use a lot of physical security, some central banks are literally located in bunkers under mountains, with a backup site in a similar setup on a different geological plate. I have not seen any PoS schemes so far that provide anything other than plutocracy as a service. There is a reason why ETH with a 100mil R&D budget is still on PoW, Vitalik is not a dummy. as for the cheap sources of sustainable energy, those are usually stranded hydro and wind that's too remote to be economic, and stranded natgas (for natgas "green" might be a better term, i've used sustainable in the sense that CH4 is far more damaging that CO2. I've been told by regulators it is actually better to burn off CH4 from stranded wells) Balancing of the grid also does happen, but I believe primarily with wind and hydro. I, of course, agree that we should not pollute the Earth we live on. High energy usage in itself is not bad, only if it's a harmful polluter. I've only pointed out dishwashers and pools (don't have the stats handy, but they do indeed use a lot more, like a magnitude more), as a common hypocrisy. We must rapidly scale up non-polluting energy sources, as it seems unlikely humanity can become a spacefaring species on a self-imposed tight energy budget, and this self-imposed handicap coupled with an unexpected asteroid impact can end us.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    Pools in the US use 14 billion kwh it's hard to imagine it being even global orders of magnitude more than Bitcoin. It's also hard to see how push button Armageddon has possibly made us more safe than nobody having nukes. We are only more safe than if only our enemies had them. The same could even be said of armies.
- keymone 5y ago
  There is zero waste in PoW. It’s all useful service, therefore waste term doesn’t apply.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> standing armies that are "doing nothing" Armies have to practice. Smart generals don't let their armies do nothing; to be any good at warfighting, they have to fight wars. Effective standing armies have to constantly be finding new wars to fight.
- keymone 5y ago
  Nice to see you rationalizing expenditure that goes towards murdering people. Are you the people talking down to bitcoiners about being wasteful and not caring about future of humanity? Give me a break.
  - codyb 5y ago
    How many people aren’t murdered because of armies though? Humans have been grouping and fighting each other for thousands of years now. You’re under the impression everyone should just… what… pretend it doesn’t happen? When attacking a neighbor state costs more (because your neighbors have arms too), it’s less likely to happen. The cold war had plenty of awful hot action with proxies and third parties but the entirely hot version obviously would have been far more calamitous. I suggest reading Herodotus’ Histories, or you can read up on Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Hitler, Alexander, the Crusades, or the myriad other conquerors and conflicts that have occurred.
    - keymone 5y ago
      But when conflict is resolved by energy expenditure, it involves even less suffering.
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    I was presenting a case against large standing armies!
Kbelicius 5y ago
> The vast majority of mining today uses sustainable energy (70%+) Do you have an source for this? I remember the same number being flaunted before but it turned out not to be true. What was true was that 70%+ of miners use any amount of renewables in their energy mix.
- keymone 5y ago
  You’re right. The correct number is somewhere around 50%, probably over the line already, which is significantly better than any other big industry.
  - newswasboring 5y ago
    > The correct number is somewhere around 50% Do you have some source for this? I see random numbers being thrown around a lot, would be nice to have a citation for yours.
    - keymone 5y ago
      https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021.07.01-BMC-Q2-2021-Materials.pdf https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/...

Magnusmaster 5y ago

The service is worthless if you can trust a central authority like a government that 99.99% of people do.

yowlingcat 5y ago
There are many countries where people cannot trust a central authority like a government to keep their savings remotely safe and stable in value.
- Magnusmaster 5y ago
  Even in those cases you can use dollars and trust the US government