7 ms·

With a technology that is extremely damaging to the entire planet for no reason, when its advocates come into your community and try selling it, it's perfectly

With a technology that is extremely damaging to the entire planet for no reason, when its advocates come into your community and try selling it, it's perfectly reasonable to shout them down. Like it or not, HN is an important forum. People with a fair amount of influence come here. Personally I'd like anyone perusing a cryptocurrency thread here to come away with the opinion that it's junk tech that roasts the planet, both because it's true and because climate change is a very serious problem. If the end result is that cryptocurrency discourse is effectively run out of HN, similar to phrenology or eugenics, that would delight me.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sanderjd 5y ago
Feel free to keep making this criticism of bitcoin, which has no path toward using anything but more and more energy over time. But ethereum's aggregate energy usage is not yet enormous enough to accuse it of roasting the planet, and it is in the final stages of switching to a consensus technology that is not energy inefficient. (And all the newer blockchains have already switched.)
- camgunz 5y ago
  If Ethereum had as much use as Bitcoin it would use as much energy--probably more because of the extra processing power required by smart contracts. So this argument reduces to "Ethereum isn't popular so leave it alone", which doesn't make sense because you all are trying to make it popular. None of the PoS networks are popular outside of the crypto space, and almost certainly never will be. Most institutions are busy working on their own, highly centralized coins (e.g. Libra, whatever the PRC's coin is, etc) and aren't gonna adopt one of these anyway, so they're irrelevant. But if they were, they would have the same problems that any PoS network has: rich people control them. How exactly does that improve on the existing system?
  - pa7x1 5y ago
    Have you looked at the data before making the claims? Ethereum far surpasses in use Bitcoin by pretty much any metric you look. For example, in the last 24h Ethereum processed 1.24M of transactions and netted a revenue of $ 60M in transaction fees. Bitcoin processed 0.24M transactions in the same time period and netted a revenue of $ 0.88M. Source: messari.io The transition to PoS cuts the energy consumption by 99.95%, btw.
    - mechanical_bear 5y ago
      Of course they don’t actually consider facts when wielding their hate boners for cryptocurrencies. It’s become tired and predictable every time this topic is brought up. It’s as bad as Religion on Reddit. If they don’t like cryptocurrency, just move on, no one is going to win hearts and minds being the negative jerk about it every time it’s brought.
    - camgunz 5y ago
      The metric that matters is price, for two reasons: - Gas fees are based on price - As price increases it's more attractive to mine. That means devs will increase the mining difficulty. That means more electricity use. > The transition to PoS cuts the energy consumption by 99.95%, btw. It also makes Ethereum Visa, so what's the point?
      - pa7x1 5y ago
        > Gas fees are based on price This is not correct. Gas fees are essentially an auction for blockspace, the basefee is adjusted dynamically via EIP-1559 but the tip is essentially an auction (highest bidders go first). If demand outstrips blockspace gas fees go up, independently of ETH price. If supply of blockspace is greater than demand, then gas fees go down irrespectively of ETH price. EDIT: To clarify. What you say would be the case if gas fees were a set amount of ETH. Then, of course, gas fees denominated in $ would be totally correlated with ETH price. But this is not the case. Gas fees work as explained above and thus are, in principle, decoupled from ETH price. Although some correlation might occur due to market dynamics (bull markets bring network activity, bear markets take away network activity) but is not built-in into the gas price mechanism. > - As price increases it's more attractive to mine. This is correct. > That means devs will increase the mining difficulty. The mining difficulty adjusts itself, the devs do not need to modify. Same as in Bitcoin, it's designed to adjust to maintain an even block production. You might be thinking of the difficulty bomb that needs to be defused once in a while but it has nothing to do with this topic. > It also makes Ethereum Visa, so what's the point? Not following.
Tenoke 5y ago
>Personally I'd like anyone perusing a cryptocurrency thread here to come away with the opinion that it's junk tech that roasts the planet, both because it's true and because climate change is a very serious problem. If you read these threads you must know this isn't a universal for cryptocurrencies as it does not apply to multiple of the biggest projects. Even Ethereum which this post is about is scheduled to move away from PoW next quarter though their timeline claims are to be taken with some salt. Comparing a discussion on a programming language to eugenics and phrenology just shows you have a bone to pick rather than trying to be helpful.
- camgunz 5y ago
  Ethereum has always been PoW and the only thing that separates it from Bitcoin in this regard is its relative unpopularity. Further its switch to PoS has some big implications. For example: I can run an Ether node right now with very little money. This strengthens and diversifies the network. PoS shrinks the participant pool dramatically, effectively making it a centralized protocol that only the rich are allowed to participate in (or put another way, $100k is a hell of an initial investment for 99.99999% of people alive). I was intentional in lumping crypto in with eugenics and phrenology, because they're all bad ideas that are super harmful for humanity. That's how bad climate change is! But more broadly, this is just another example of a crypto person crying ignorance or ad hominem rather than having any cogent arguments or new information. The tech isn't that hard to understand. We get it. It is actually just bad.
  - Tenoke 5y ago
    You are jumping between claims. As you've acknowledged Ethereum will switch to PoS where your climate change claims are incorrect (as they already are when talking about crypto as a whole). Your seperate PoS concerns of centralization (whether valid or not) at most make it as 'evil' as any other centralized service.
    - camgunz 5y ago
      1. I'm not acknowledging anything. I think the switch happening is very up in the air, and the switch happening without irreparably destroying the community is also very up in the air. I think ETH devs agree, which is why it's been postponed so much. 2. If it's just as bad as what we have now, seems like a lot of effort for no reason right?
pennaMan 5y ago
>With a technology that is extremely damaging to the entire planet for no reason You mean energy production? Do you apply the same standards to threads about personal vehicles? Or for that matter, energy consuming/producing technology in general like, you know, computers?
- camgunz 5y ago
  You missed where I wrote "for no reason". I'm happy to talk about energy efficiency in the micro (dishwashers) or the macro (shipping), but we have to first agree that crypto has no legitimate use cases and is just waste, so we can dispense with this whataboutism that's currently in vogue in crypto threads.
  - pennaMan 5y ago
    We would then first need to define what "real reason" means
    - camgunz 5y ago
      An investment (i.e. a security or a commodity) or whatever you would use a real currency for, outside of crime. The argument I get back most for this is "how do people pay for porn", but I'm pretty sure people are paying for porn as we're furiously typing at each other this very moment, so it seems like a non-issue.
      - pennaMan 5y ago
        What is a real currency? Is USD real? If so, why? The mining of the USD is oil extraction, especially in war-torn or human rights abusing countries. Why aren't we talking how the US economy is based on extracting and selling and speculating the very thing burning our planet? Not even counting the numerous wars it created. I don't think the BTC hash function has a hard requirement on using energy from fossil fuels, does it?
        5y ago
bleachedsleet 5y ago
This argument is as tired and old as the curmudgeonly people that make it. >With a technology that is extremely damaging to the entire planet for no reason… Not all blockchains are based on PoW. If you actually read even a brief summary of the basics of crypto you’d know this since it’s mentioned nearly everywhere these days. It seems you are therefore either ignorant on what you speak, or are willfully misleading people to fit your own narrative. >…come away with the opinion that it's junk tech that roasts the planet, both because it's true and because climate change is a very serious problem. You’re stating opinions as facts and being far more intellectually dishonest and misleading than any crypto native I’ve seen on here. > If the end result is that cryptocurrency discourse is effectively run out of HN… You and you alone don’t get to decide or arbiter what HN is used for or who it is used by. This is gate keeping trash that erodes intellectual debate and discourse into an echo chamber of more curmudgeonly people patting each other’s curmudgeonly backs. > Like it or not, HN is an important forum. People with a fair amount of influence come here. HN is an important forum full of important people. On this we agree. My opinion, then, is we should probably be open to discussing new technologies, difficult topics, and unsavory ideas as these are the types of conversation from whence innovation springs. Nobody ever got smarter debating which JavaScript framework is the new hotness on the front page of HN. > …similar to phrenology or eugenics… Eugenics is worth discussing as it will once again become a cultural hotbed debate as we move into an era of designer genetics. I find it mostly amusing that you punctuate your point about quelling curiosity by dismissing away another topic that requires thick skin and intellectual rigor to properly discuss and even lump these in with phrenology. This is kind of like saying “discussions of meteorology, astronomy, and astrology should be banned.” One of these things is not like the other… Based on this comment alone, I’d say you also probably like burning books.
- camgunz 5y ago
  Much of your comment doesn't contribute to the discussion. I get that I offended you, but I think you should explore why you're so offended. I reference other networks in my other comments. If you think the facts I've stated aren't actually facts, provide some controverting evidence (all you do is call them opinions, ironically making you guilty of the thing you're accusing me of). I'm not gatekeeping and obviously have no such power; I'm participating in an internet forum politely. Eugenics is gross. I haven't burned a book since... middle school probably. Let's talk about uses for cryptocurrencies! Your turn!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sanderjd 5y ago

Feel free to keep making this criticism of bitcoin, which has no path toward using anything but more and more energy over time. But ethereum's aggregate energy usage is not yet enormous enough to accuse it of roasting the planet, and it is in the final stages of switching to a consensus technology that is not energy inefficient. (And all the newer blockchains have already switched.)

camgunz 5y ago
If Ethereum had as much use as Bitcoin it would use as much energy--probably more because of the extra processing power required by smart contracts. So this argument reduces to "Ethereum isn't popular so leave it alone", which doesn't make sense because you all are trying to make it popular. None of the PoS networks are popular outside of the crypto space, and almost certainly never will be. Most institutions are busy working on their own, highly centralized coins (e.g. Libra, whatever the PRC's coin is, etc) and aren't gonna adopt one of these anyway, so they're irrelevant. But if they were, they would have the same problems that any PoS network has: rich people control them. How exactly does that improve on the existing system?
- pa7x1 5y ago
  Have you looked at the data before making the claims? Ethereum far surpasses in use Bitcoin by pretty much any metric you look. For example, in the last 24h Ethereum processed 1.24M of transactions and netted a revenue of $ 60M in transaction fees. Bitcoin processed 0.24M transactions in the same time period and netted a revenue of $ 0.88M. Source: messari.io The transition to PoS cuts the energy consumption by 99.95%, btw.
  - mechanical_bear 5y ago
    Of course they don’t actually consider facts when wielding their hate boners for cryptocurrencies. It’s become tired and predictable every time this topic is brought up. It’s as bad as Religion on Reddit. If they don’t like cryptocurrency, just move on, no one is going to win hearts and minds being the negative jerk about it every time it’s brought.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    The metric that matters is price, for two reasons: - Gas fees are based on price - As price increases it's more attractive to mine. That means devs will increase the mining difficulty. That means more electricity use. > The transition to PoS cuts the energy consumption by 99.95%, btw. It also makes Ethereum Visa, so what's the point?
    - pa7x1 5y ago
      > Gas fees are based on price This is not correct. Gas fees are essentially an auction for blockspace, the basefee is adjusted dynamically via EIP-1559 but the tip is essentially an auction (highest bidders go first). If demand outstrips blockspace gas fees go up, independently of ETH price. If supply of blockspace is greater than demand, then gas fees go down irrespectively of ETH price. EDIT: To clarify. What you say would be the case if gas fees were a set amount of ETH. Then, of course, gas fees denominated in $ would be totally correlated with ETH price. But this is not the case. Gas fees work as explained above and thus are, in principle, decoupled from ETH price. Although some correlation might occur due to market dynamics (bull markets bring network activity, bear markets take away network activity) but is not built-in into the gas price mechanism. > - As price increases it's more attractive to mine. This is correct. > That means devs will increase the mining difficulty. The mining difficulty adjusts itself, the devs do not need to modify. Same as in Bitcoin, it's designed to adjust to maintain an even block production. You might be thinking of the difficulty bomb that needs to be defused once in a while but it has nothing to do with this topic. > It also makes Ethereum Visa, so what's the point? Not following.

Tenoke 5y ago

>Personally I'd like anyone perusing a cryptocurrency thread here to come away with the opinion that it's junk tech that roasts the planet, both because it's true and because climate change is a very serious problem. If you read these threads you must know this isn't a universal for cryptocurrencies as it does not apply to multiple of the biggest projects. Even Ethereum which this post is about is scheduled to move away from PoW next quarter though their timeline claims are to be taken with some salt. Comparing a discussion on a programming language to eugenics and phrenology just shows you have a bone to pick rather than trying to be helpful.

camgunz 5y ago
Ethereum has always been PoW and the only thing that separates it from Bitcoin in this regard is its relative unpopularity. Further its switch to PoS has some big implications. For example: I can run an Ether node right now with very little money. This strengthens and diversifies the network. PoS shrinks the participant pool dramatically, effectively making it a centralized protocol that only the rich are allowed to participate in (or put another way, $100k is a hell of an initial investment for 99.99999% of people alive). I was intentional in lumping crypto in with eugenics and phrenology, because they're all bad ideas that are super harmful for humanity. That's how bad climate change is! But more broadly, this is just another example of a crypto person crying ignorance or ad hominem rather than having any cogent arguments or new information. The tech isn't that hard to understand. We get it. It is actually just bad.
- Tenoke 5y ago
  You are jumping between claims. As you've acknowledged Ethereum will switch to PoS where your climate change claims are incorrect (as they already are when talking about crypto as a whole). Your seperate PoS concerns of centralization (whether valid or not) at most make it as 'evil' as any other centralized service.
  - camgunz 5y ago
    1. I'm not acknowledging anything. I think the switch happening is very up in the air, and the switch happening without irreparably destroying the community is also very up in the air. I think ETH devs agree, which is why it's been postponed so much. 2. If it's just as bad as what we have now, seems like a lot of effort for no reason right?

pennaMan 5y ago

>With a technology that is extremely damaging to the entire planet for no reason You mean energy production? Do you apply the same standards to threads about personal vehicles? Or for that matter, energy consuming/producing technology in general like, you know, computers?

camgunz 5y ago
You missed where I wrote "for no reason". I'm happy to talk about energy efficiency in the micro (dishwashers) or the macro (shipping), but we have to first agree that crypto has no legitimate use cases and is just waste, so we can dispense with this whataboutism that's currently in vogue in crypto threads.
- pennaMan 5y ago
  We would then first need to define what "real reason" means
  - camgunz 5y ago
    An investment (i.e. a security or a commodity) or whatever you would use a real currency for, outside of crime. The argument I get back most for this is "how do people pay for porn", but I'm pretty sure people are paying for porn as we're furiously typing at each other this very moment, so it seems like a non-issue.
    - pennaMan 5y ago
      What is a real currency? Is USD real? If so, why? The mining of the USD is oil extraction, especially in war-torn or human rights abusing countries. Why aren't we talking how the US economy is based on extracting and selling and speculating the very thing burning our planet? Not even counting the numerous wars it created. I don't think the BTC hash function has a hard requirement on using energy from fossil fuels, does it?
      - 5y ago

bleachedsleet 5y ago

This argument is as tired and old as the curmudgeonly people that make it. >With a technology that is extremely damaging to the entire planet for no reason… Not all blockchains are based on PoW. If you actually read even a brief summary of the basics of crypto you’d know this since it’s mentioned nearly everywhere these days. It seems you are therefore either ignorant on what you speak, or are willfully misleading people to fit your own narrative. >…come away with the opinion that it's junk tech that roasts the planet, both because it's true and because climate change is a very serious problem. You’re stating opinions as facts and being far more intellectually dishonest and misleading than any crypto native I’ve seen on here. > If the end result is that cryptocurrency discourse is effectively run out of HN… You and you alone don’t get to decide or arbiter what HN is used for or who it is used by. This is gate keeping trash that erodes intellectual debate and discourse into an echo chamber of more curmudgeonly people patting each other’s curmudgeonly backs. > Like it or not, HN is an important forum. People with a fair amount of influence come here. HN is an important forum full of important people. On this we agree. My opinion, then, is we should probably be open to discussing new technologies, difficult topics, and unsavory ideas as these are the types of conversation from whence innovation springs. Nobody ever got smarter debating which JavaScript framework is the new hotness on the front page of HN. > …similar to phrenology or eugenics… Eugenics is worth discussing as it will once again become a cultural hotbed debate as we move into an era of designer genetics. I find it mostly amusing that you punctuate your point about quelling curiosity by dismissing away another topic that requires thick skin and intellectual rigor to properly discuss and even lump these in with phrenology. This is kind of like saying “discussions of meteorology, astronomy, and astrology should be banned.” One of these things is not like the other… Based on this comment alone, I’d say you also probably like burning books.

camgunz 5y ago
Much of your comment doesn't contribute to the discussion. I get that I offended you, but I think you should explore why you're so offended. I reference other networks in my other comments. If you think the facts I've stated aren't actually facts, provide some controverting evidence (all you do is call them opinions, ironically making you guilty of the thing you're accusing me of). I'm not gatekeeping and obviously have no such power; I'm participating in an internet forum politely. Eugenics is gross. I haven't burned a book since... middle school probably. Let's talk about uses for cryptocurrencies! Your turn!