6 ms·

What will happen if more countries ban crypto mining, say the US? Would that leave mining under Russian control? In that case could Bitcoin be embargoed, becaus

What will happen if more countries ban crypto mining, say the US? Would that leave mining under Russian control? In that case could Bitcoin be embargoed, because they’re “made” in Russia? Personally I don’t see the value in crypto-currencies, but that doesn’t mean it not useful to someone. The crypto community should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin, before the whole thing is regulated away. Right now it’s pretty hard to defend Bitcoin, based on the environmental impact alone.

xxs 5y ago
>should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin Proof of work is the core of bitcoin; it has a built-in deflation on top it. In short it won't happen. And yes, if someone mentions proof of stake, there is still no working case for it.
- erwincoumans 5y ago
  Isn't Ethereum using proof-of-stake since a recent update? (I'm not an expert in this though)
  - DennisP 5y ago
    It's running a proof-of-stake network in parallel to the main chain, which is still running proof-of-work. The proof-of-stake network has been running for a bit over a year and has $30 billion in ETH deposited. Code for merging the two networks and eliminating mining is on a public test net right now. Previous upgrades have gone live within a year of the launch of their public test nets.
    - ziml77 5y ago
      > Previous upgrades have gone live within a year of the launch of their public test nets. I didn't know that, but it helps with my hope that PoS will become the default. People bringing up how long they've been trying to switch had been hurting my confidence.
  - krzyk 5y ago
    Might use it in June, unless they push it further (like they did previously).
cyborgx7 5y ago
>The crypto community should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin It cannot be addressed. By definition. It's not like sadly there is a part of the Bitcoin algorithm that is very expensive computationally and therefore energetically and if we could only optimize that part the problem would go away. There is an intentionally hard part that is a part of the Bitcoin protocol to make the Proof-of-Work algorithm, that obviates the need for a central source of authority or trust, work. Anybody who tells you that Bitcoin will overcome the exorbitant energy needs is ignorant or a scam artist.
- m4rtink 5y ago
  Yeah, isn't it kinda on purpose ? I always understand it as a way for anyone anywhere being able to join just with a computer and electricity, without having to beg any existing centralized entity for permission to exchange their "real" money for the crypto tokens. And it seems to have been right, as exchanges are indeed where most fraud happens a what is actually targeted when a government does not like a cryptocurrency. Still not sure how one is supposed to avoid this without handing over the given crypto network to a centralized entity that decides who gets what.
  - cyphertruck 5y ago
    That is exactly correct. And proof of work solves a problem that was thought unsolvable. So no other solution is likely to appear soon. None yet. (Proof of stake just recreates the problem.)
    - geertj 5y ago
      What is the problem with PoS that you speak about?
      - danlugo92 5y ago
        https://endthefud.org/PoW https://endthefud.org/PoW
scotty79 5y ago
The way to address bitcoin energy usage is to build your own renewable energy sources to power your bitcoin mining. And sell electricity to the grid when it's more profitable than mining.
- speedgoose 5y ago
  Maybe Bitcoin people could finance nuclear fusion research to keep up with the energy consumption.
  - politician 5y ago
    Compared to fusion, the better play is in space-based powersats and off-planet computation. BTC on cubesats. Then what will they complain about?
    - scotty79 5y ago
      Kessler syndrome
thisistheend123 5y ago
The big private players in Crypto who have invested a lot of money and time would not let US government ban mining.
- WJW 5y ago
  There are equally big or larger players with an entrenched interest in the "regular" financial system. The environmental lobby is no slouch either. Crypto mining will only remain legal if it can defeat both of those groups and merely having a few billionaires on your side is not enough when the other side has more of them.
- rsynnott 5y ago
  The fossil fuel companies have been largely unable to stop environmental regulation (though they've arguably been able to slow them down in the US somewhat); I'm not sure that a few VC firms would necessarily be able to stop the government in its tracks. Like, the big private players in crypto-nonsense just aren't _that_ big.
- quickthrowman 5y ago
  Let’s play a game of who has more influence: A16Z or Goldman Sachs? Block or JP Morgan Chase? Coinbase or Vanguard?
Glench 5y ago
I think Chia makes a pretty good case here — same Nakamoto consensus security guarantees as Bitcoin only using hard drive space instead of processor power so the ongoing energy use is vastly less. There are around ~350k full nodes today (compared to bitcoin's 15k) and it uses about 400x less power: https://chiapower.org/ https://chiapower.org/ I farm it completely with old hard drives that I had lying around that weren't being used anyway.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  So instead of wrecking the GPU market we would move to wrecking the HDD market?
  - Glench 5y ago
    I'm not sure if you're interested in discussing or just want to do a drive-by criticism, but that's actually an interesting question! Currently 1.5 zettabytes of new HDDs are sold each year which is around $65 billion. So HDDs are a pretty mature market with massive data centers buying most of that storage. One of the hypotheses with Chia was that there is a lot of over-provisioned storage already out in the world — on both consumer and idle enterprise drives. This is in line with the original intent of Bitcoin that anyone could mine which would make the network more secure. It's obviously cheaper to use existing storage to secure the Chia blockchain than to buy new drives so the market will move toward maximally using existing storage. Datacenters could use their existing idle storage for Chia farming before a more lucrative use came along. And the storage doesn't need to be very reliable for Chia farming, so old hard drives that are no longer viable from datacenters can be used (apparently datacenters just destroy HDDs outright currently?) Currently there are about 35 exabytes of storage in the Chia network, which is about 2-3% of the entire yearly supply of HDDs. Given that supply chains weren't really disrupted, I think it's pretty safe to say that the Chia bet was right and that it's actually utilizing a bunch of unused space already out in the world. And the IDC agrees: https://idcdocserv.com/US47836321 https://idcdocserv.com/US47836321 Now, obviously if the market valued Chia extremely highly then supplies of HDDs would be impacted. But I wonder how much that would affect everyday folks like you and I since most storage in devices are now SSDs, which are not very storage-dense so aren't really as economical for Chia. Would it be the case that consumers couldn't buy HDDs? At some coin price, yeah, definitely. I have no idea what that price could be.
cyphertruck 5y ago
Do you think hair dryers should be banned? Are clothes dryers indefensible? They all are unnecessary- just hang clothes up. And use dar more power than bitcoin.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  If hair dryers or clothes dryers used the proof-of-work algorithm--which is designed to be wasteful--then yes, I would ban them.
  - drexlspivey 5y ago
    Actually a dryer that uses POW generated heat would be much less wasteful than just heating up air, it would produce the same amount of heat per watt and it would do something useful with it.
    - cguess 5y ago
      "useful" I take it you've never had long hair?
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      Except that isn't true. The chip in the hair dryer would become obsolete before it ever mined a block, so your expensive hair dryer would be even more wasteful. What a ridiculous proposition.
      - drexlspivey 5y ago
        I take it you are not familiar with POW mining? You don’t have to mine a full block, you get paid for any fractional contribution. Any device that converts energy to heat can be replaced by another that converts the same amount of energy to the same amount of heat while doing POW work.
        SantalBlush 5y ago
seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Developing countries are more likely to ban crypto mining because they subsidize electricity prices. Economically it just doesn’t make sense for them, though one could easily argue that their utility pricing is designed to be gamed in the first place. Developed countries are much less likely to ban crypto mining because they charge market rates (or more) for electricity. Russia, ironically, fits more into the former rather than latter category, so they might just ban crypto mining as a pragmatic concern.

xxs 5y ago

>should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin Proof of work is the core of bitcoin; it has a built-in deflation on top it. In short it won't happen. And yes, if someone mentions proof of stake, there is still no working case for it.

erwincoumans 5y ago
Isn't Ethereum using proof-of-stake since a recent update? (I'm not an expert in this though)
- DennisP 5y ago
  It's running a proof-of-stake network in parallel to the main chain, which is still running proof-of-work. The proof-of-stake network has been running for a bit over a year and has $30 billion in ETH deposited. Code for merging the two networks and eliminating mining is on a public test net right now. Previous upgrades have gone live within a year of the launch of their public test nets.
  - ziml77 5y ago
    > Previous upgrades have gone live within a year of the launch of their public test nets. I didn't know that, but it helps with my hope that PoS will become the default. People bringing up how long they've been trying to switch had been hurting my confidence.
- krzyk 5y ago
  Might use it in June, unless they push it further (like they did previously).

cyborgx7 5y ago

>The crypto community should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin It cannot be addressed. By definition. It's not like sadly there is a part of the Bitcoin algorithm that is very expensive computationally and therefore energetically and if we could only optimize that part the problem would go away. There is an intentionally hard part that is a part of the Bitcoin protocol to make the Proof-of-Work algorithm, that obviates the need for a central source of authority or trust, work. Anybody who tells you that Bitcoin will overcome the exorbitant energy needs is ignorant or a scam artist.

m4rtink 5y ago
Yeah, isn't it kinda on purpose ? I always understand it as a way for anyone anywhere being able to join just with a computer and electricity, without having to beg any existing centralized entity for permission to exchange their "real" money for the crypto tokens. And it seems to have been right, as exchanges are indeed where most fraud happens a what is actually targeted when a government does not like a cryptocurrency. Still not sure how one is supposed to avoid this without handing over the given crypto network to a centralized entity that decides who gets what.
- cyphertruck 5y ago
  That is exactly correct. And proof of work solves a problem that was thought unsolvable. So no other solution is likely to appear soon. None yet. (Proof of stake just recreates the problem.)
  - geertj 5y ago
    What is the problem with PoS that you speak about?
    - danlugo92 5y ago
      https://endthefud.org/PoW https://endthefud.org/PoW

scotty79 5y ago

The way to address bitcoin energy usage is to build your own renewable energy sources to power your bitcoin mining. And sell electricity to the grid when it's more profitable than mining.

speedgoose 5y ago
Maybe Bitcoin people could finance nuclear fusion research to keep up with the energy consumption.
- politician 5y ago
  Compared to fusion, the better play is in space-based powersats and off-planet computation. BTC on cubesats. Then what will they complain about?
  - scotty79 5y ago
    Kessler syndrome

thisistheend123 5y ago

The big private players in Crypto who have invested a lot of money and time would not let US government ban mining.

WJW 5y ago
There are equally big or larger players with an entrenched interest in the "regular" financial system. The environmental lobby is no slouch either. Crypto mining will only remain legal if it can defeat both of those groups and merely having a few billionaires on your side is not enough when the other side has more of them.
rsynnott 5y ago
The fossil fuel companies have been largely unable to stop environmental regulation (though they've arguably been able to slow them down in the US somewhat); I'm not sure that a few VC firms would necessarily be able to stop the government in its tracks. Like, the big private players in crypto-nonsense just aren't _that_ big.
quickthrowman 5y ago
Let’s play a game of who has more influence: A16Z or Goldman Sachs? Block or JP Morgan Chase? Coinbase or Vanguard?

Glench 5y ago

I think Chia makes a pretty good case here — same Nakamoto consensus security guarantees as Bitcoin only using hard drive space instead of processor power so the ongoing energy use is vastly less. There are around ~350k full nodes today (compared to bitcoin's 15k) and it uses about 400x less power: https://chiapower.org/ https://chiapower.org/ I farm it completely with old hard drives that I had lying around that weren't being used anyway.

cuteboy19 5y ago
So instead of wrecking the GPU market we would move to wrecking the HDD market?
- Glench 5y ago
  I'm not sure if you're interested in discussing or just want to do a drive-by criticism, but that's actually an interesting question! Currently 1.5 zettabytes of new HDDs are sold each year which is around $65 billion. So HDDs are a pretty mature market with massive data centers buying most of that storage. One of the hypotheses with Chia was that there is a lot of over-provisioned storage already out in the world — on both consumer and idle enterprise drives. This is in line with the original intent of Bitcoin that anyone could mine which would make the network more secure. It's obviously cheaper to use existing storage to secure the Chia blockchain than to buy new drives so the market will move toward maximally using existing storage. Datacenters could use their existing idle storage for Chia farming before a more lucrative use came along. And the storage doesn't need to be very reliable for Chia farming, so old hard drives that are no longer viable from datacenters can be used (apparently datacenters just destroy HDDs outright currently?) Currently there are about 35 exabytes of storage in the Chia network, which is about 2-3% of the entire yearly supply of HDDs. Given that supply chains weren't really disrupted, I think it's pretty safe to say that the Chia bet was right and that it's actually utilizing a bunch of unused space already out in the world. And the IDC agrees: https://idcdocserv.com/US47836321 https://idcdocserv.com/US47836321 Now, obviously if the market valued Chia extremely highly then supplies of HDDs would be impacted. But I wonder how much that would affect everyday folks like you and I since most storage in devices are now SSDs, which are not very storage-dense so aren't really as economical for Chia. Would it be the case that consumers couldn't buy HDDs? At some coin price, yeah, definitely. I have no idea what that price could be.

cyphertruck 5y ago

Do you think hair dryers should be banned? Are clothes dryers indefensible? They all are unnecessary- just hang clothes up. And use dar more power than bitcoin.

SantalBlush 5y ago
If hair dryers or clothes dryers used the proof-of-work algorithm--which is designed to be wasteful--then yes, I would ban them.
- drexlspivey 5y ago
  Actually a dryer that uses POW generated heat would be much less wasteful than just heating up air, it would produce the same amount of heat per watt and it would do something useful with it.
  - cguess 5y ago
    "useful" I take it you've never had long hair?
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    Except that isn't true. The chip in the hair dryer would become obsolete before it ever mined a block, so your expensive hair dryer would be even more wasteful. What a ridiculous proposition.
    - drexlspivey 5y ago
      I take it you are not familiar with POW mining? You don’t have to mine a full block, you get paid for any fractional contribution. Any device that converts energy to heat can be replaced by another that converts the same amount of energy to the same amount of heat while doing POW work.
      - SantalBlush 5y ago

seanmcdirmid 5y ago

Developing countries are more likely to ban crypto mining because they subsidize electricity prices. Economically it just doesn’t make sense for them, though one could easily argue that their utility pricing is designed to be gamed in the first place. Developed countries are much less likely to ban crypto mining because they charge market rates (or more) for electricity. Russia, ironically, fits more into the former rather than latter category, so they might just ban crypto mining as a pragmatic concern.