10 ms·

>The digital blockchain, via proof-of-work, is thus connected to real-world natural resources. This, in essence, is why any further adoption of PoW chains is d

>The digital blockchain, via proof-of-work, is thus connected to real-world natural resources. This, in essence, is why any further adoption of PoW chains is deeply incompatible with climate change mitigation. I'm happy to see crypto mature into some kind of open source / open protocol financial system but it needs to happen strictly on proof-of-stake chains (whatever the challenges to decentralization).

verdverm 5y ago
Proof of Authority might be better than staking. There are some interesting winner take all like properties in both systems. One is easier to regulate for the broader good when things go awry.
- iskander 5y ago
  Interesting, hadn't heard of it before. What gets slashed in PoA? Is there some kind of quantified reputation that you lose through misbehavior?
  - verdverm 5y ago
    It's a permissioned system, so there is a cartel like group who decides who can do what. It's very similar to what we have today. It's also not like anyone can add code to Bitcoin, so there are permissioned parts of the system.
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    PoA is centralized, by definition. You are approved to be a validator by some trusted entity. In theory, this can be a group or consensus (you could imagine a PoA scheme where the set of authorized validators is passed around like a HOSTS file), but you still need to trust the mechanism that authorizes validators. You lose your right to be a validator through misbehavior; you are removed from the list of authorized validators, and hence can't do it anymore.
- chpatrick 5y ago
  At that point haven't you just reinvented the banking system?
  - verdverm 5y ago
    You can still have smart contracts and shared ledgers. There are efficiency and collaboration gains. This will likely happen anyway, regardless of what happens in the public permissionless space.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    That's exactly what a lot of bitcoin critics want.
  - tata71 5y ago
    Sort of, but with transparency.
    - chpatrick 5y ago
      Really? Random crypto companies in the cayman islands are less transparent to me than banks which are subject to a huge amount of regulation.
anonporridge 5y ago
Use of energy is not necessarily incompatible with climate change mitigation. PoW uses electricity and is completely agnostic to whether that electricity is generated by fossil fuels or clean renewables/nuclear. Piddling about how civilization chooses to use electricity as a solution to climate change will be a never ending game of whack-a-mole. The only solution is to address it at it's source, by internalizing the negative externalizes of carbon pollution in the cost of this energy use. Anything else is feel good bullshit. Moreover, to the proponents of PoW, it is not a flaw to be removed, but a necessary foundation that makes the protocol incorruptible and eternally open and permissionless for anyone to join as first class citizens, even late adopters. This stands in stark contrast to PoS which gives an absurd level of power and protocol control to early adopters that potentially can't ever be diluted, and may even increase since PoS rewards holders of coin with even more coin.
- iskander 5y ago
  This is a mix of climate denialism and Bitcoin religion. 1) A system that turns energy usage into $ will always gravitate towards the cheapest energy source (fossil fuels). Maybe we'll eventually figure out cold fusion, but for the next few decades it's pretty important to promote carbon neutral energy production even if it's more expensive while simultaneously cutting out gratuitous industrial scale waste like PoW mining. 2) "makes the protocol incorruptible and eternally open and permissionless for anyone to join as first class citizens, even late adopters". Ah yes, let me just fire up my warehouse full of ASICs connected to a dedicated power plant. Any old Joe could do it.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    No, you just misunderstood him. He's saying that energy generation and use should be carbon taxed. If you internalize the carbon externality, fossil fuels will not be cheap. There are arguments against these, but yours is a poor one.
    - anonporridge 5y ago
      Thank you. Everyone replying to this comment seems to be intentionally ignoring my point.
Uptrenda 5y ago
You can say this about anything that uses lots of electricity. Sure, removing it solves the immediate 'problem' but its also not any more practical than having everyone walk everywhere solves the immediate carbon impact of driving. The solution is to invest in more solar, nuclear, and energy storage solutions. Our Earth is already plenty rich in resources to scale up power requirements, and our sun provides near unlimited energy. The energy problem isn't unique to Bitcoin. Using a lot of resources is also the main benefit to the security behind proof-of-work because it makes building a duplicate ledger immensely impractical. The security of the chain actually increases the longer blocks are joined after an input which is pretty cool.
- ivalm 5y ago
  But maybe the real answer is to just have trusted authorities? So much of civilization is possible because of trust, I don’t think we should throw that away.
  - Hokusai 5y ago
    You need trusted authorities anyway. Anyone may show at your home and steal your crypto currency at gun point, you may pay for items that are not delivered, your employer may not pay you. Authorities and the rule of law are fully needed for any functional society. Crypto currencies as an anarchist dream are impossible as a very complex society is needed to produce them, and that society requires to be functional. If someone wants anarchism they should simplify and use gold or some other easier to carry and exchange.
    - koolba 5y ago
      > Anyone may show at your home and steal your crypto currency at gun point, you may pay for items that are not delivered, your employer may not pay you. Authorities and the rule of law are fully needed for any functional society. In a crypto anarchist’s dream world, the employee’s income claimable token could be resold, purchased by a loan shark, and the loan shark could provide another permission-less contract where anybody can upload a picture of the employer’s knees being broken, likely verified on chain by some other pain oracle.
jkhdigital 5y ago
How much electricity could we save by shutting down every porn site on the internet? Probably more than we’d “save” by shutting down PoW blockchains. Every economic activity uses energy (electricity, or combustion) in one form or another. The argument you’re really making is that the net increase in energy usage due to Bitcoin’s existence—and the resultant carbon impact, however you propose to measure it—is not worth the benefit provided by the Bitcoin network. But if you’re going to judge Bitcoin by its carbon footprint, you might want to judge all other economic activities by the same standard to avoid accusations of hypocrisy.

verdverm 5y ago

Proof of Authority might be better than staking. There are some interesting winner take all like properties in both systems. One is easier to regulate for the broader good when things go awry.

iskander 5y ago
Interesting, hadn't heard of it before. What gets slashed in PoA? Is there some kind of quantified reputation that you lose through misbehavior?
- verdverm 5y ago
  It's a permissioned system, so there is a cartel like group who decides who can do what. It's very similar to what we have today. It's also not like anyone can add code to Bitcoin, so there are permissioned parts of the system.
- nostrademons 5y ago
  PoA is centralized, by definition. You are approved to be a validator by some trusted entity. In theory, this can be a group or consensus (you could imagine a PoA scheme where the set of authorized validators is passed around like a HOSTS file), but you still need to trust the mechanism that authorizes validators. You lose your right to be a validator through misbehavior; you are removed from the list of authorized validators, and hence can't do it anymore.
chpatrick 5y ago
At that point haven't you just reinvented the banking system?
- verdverm 5y ago
  You can still have smart contracts and shared ledgers. There are efficiency and collaboration gains. This will likely happen anyway, regardless of what happens in the public permissionless space.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  That's exactly what a lot of bitcoin critics want.
- tata71 5y ago
  Sort of, but with transparency.
  - chpatrick 5y ago
    Really? Random crypto companies in the cayman islands are less transparent to me than banks which are subject to a huge amount of regulation.

anonporridge 5y ago

Use of energy is not necessarily incompatible with climate change mitigation. PoW uses electricity and is completely agnostic to whether that electricity is generated by fossil fuels or clean renewables/nuclear. Piddling about how civilization chooses to use electricity as a solution to climate change will be a never ending game of whack-a-mole. The only solution is to address it at it's source, by internalizing the negative externalizes of carbon pollution in the cost of this energy use. Anything else is feel good bullshit. Moreover, to the proponents of PoW, it is not a flaw to be removed, but a necessary foundation that makes the protocol incorruptible and eternally open and permissionless for anyone to join as first class citizens, even late adopters. This stands in stark contrast to PoS which gives an absurd level of power and protocol control to early adopters that potentially can't ever be diluted, and may even increase since PoS rewards holders of coin with even more coin.

iskander 5y ago
This is a mix of climate denialism and Bitcoin religion. 1) A system that turns energy usage into $ will always gravitate towards the cheapest energy source (fossil fuels). Maybe we'll eventually figure out cold fusion, but for the next few decades it's pretty important to promote carbon neutral energy production even if it's more expensive while simultaneously cutting out gratuitous industrial scale waste like PoW mining. 2) "makes the protocol incorruptible and eternally open and permissionless for anyone to join as first class citizens, even late adopters". Ah yes, let me just fire up my warehouse full of ASICs connected to a dedicated power plant. Any old Joe could do it.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  No, you just misunderstood him. He's saying that energy generation and use should be carbon taxed. If you internalize the carbon externality, fossil fuels will not be cheap. There are arguments against these, but yours is a poor one.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    Thank you. Everyone replying to this comment seems to be intentionally ignoring my point.

Uptrenda 5y ago

You can say this about anything that uses lots of electricity. Sure, removing it solves the immediate 'problem' but its also not any more practical than having everyone walk everywhere solves the immediate carbon impact of driving. The solution is to invest in more solar, nuclear, and energy storage solutions. Our Earth is already plenty rich in resources to scale up power requirements, and our sun provides near unlimited energy. The energy problem isn't unique to Bitcoin. Using a lot of resources is also the main benefit to the security behind proof-of-work because it makes building a duplicate ledger immensely impractical. The security of the chain actually increases the longer blocks are joined after an input which is pretty cool.

ivalm 5y ago
But maybe the real answer is to just have trusted authorities? So much of civilization is possible because of trust, I don’t think we should throw that away.
- Hokusai 5y ago
  You need trusted authorities anyway. Anyone may show at your home and steal your crypto currency at gun point, you may pay for items that are not delivered, your employer may not pay you. Authorities and the rule of law are fully needed for any functional society. Crypto currencies as an anarchist dream are impossible as a very complex society is needed to produce them, and that society requires to be functional. If someone wants anarchism they should simplify and use gold or some other easier to carry and exchange.
  - koolba 5y ago
    > Anyone may show at your home and steal your crypto currency at gun point, you may pay for items that are not delivered, your employer may not pay you. Authorities and the rule of law are fully needed for any functional society. In a crypto anarchist’s dream world, the employee’s income claimable token could be resold, purchased by a loan shark, and the loan shark could provide another permission-less contract where anybody can upload a picture of the employer’s knees being broken, likely verified on chain by some other pain oracle.

jkhdigital 5y ago

How much electricity could we save by shutting down every porn site on the internet? Probably more than we’d “save” by shutting down PoW blockchains. Every economic activity uses energy (electricity, or combustion) in one form or another. The argument you’re really making is that the net increase in energy usage due to Bitcoin’s existence—and the resultant carbon impact, however you propose to measure it—is not worth the benefit provided by the Bitcoin network. But if you’re going to judge Bitcoin by its carbon footprint, you might want to judge all other economic activities by the same standard to avoid accusations of hypocrisy.