3 ms·

A fair point (different blockchains used different amounts of energy per transaction), but the popularity of any given chain matters when comparing its transact

A fair point (different blockchains used different amounts of energy per transaction), but the popularity of any given chain matters when comparing its transactional costs. PoW is designed to become less energy efficient as the network becomes more popular.

zeptonaut22 5y ago
That makes sense to me, but I... fully admit to not being enough of a crypto expert to factor that into the post. More than anything, this post was written as a defense to myself, family, and friends about why crypto is worth digging into deeper even if there's some bad stuff that goes along with it. I wanted something I could link to and say "hey, it's a little more complicated that it seems - if you're interested, you can take a look here".
- leshow 5y ago
  With respect, I don't feel you've defended anything. Some blockchains may be less wasteful than others, but almost every popular one is very energy intensive and IMO you haven't even talked about the elephant in the room: do they provide value in the first place? You mention some lofty things that would be nice to solve like housing, but there exists no connection between blockchain and those things, and no information on how blockchain would re-organize incentives or even if it is the right tool for the job. I fail to see the defense here.
garren 5y ago
I’d say that the security matters more when considering transaction costs, no? The article mentions solana as being significantly less resource hungry than bitcoin or ethereum, but solana is using a variation of PoS as far as I can tell. He mentions that ethereum is moving to something more efficient, which I understand it is, but again that is PoS. POS might be less resource intensive, but is prone to it’s own kind of centralization (e.g., those with the largest stake make the rules ,or decide transactions as the case may be). So the author’s argument that blockchains don’t have to be as wildly inefficient as bitcoin isn’t wrong. However, so far, that improved efficiency introduces various degrees of centralization. Centralization in a system that is effectively marketed as being secure because of its decentralized nature.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  Just because the energy consumption of Bitcoin increases doesn't mean that it becomes more secure. If an entity owning 48% of the hashrate increases its computing power then would Bitcoin become more or less secure?

zeptonaut22 5y ago

That makes sense to me, but I... fully admit to not being enough of a crypto expert to factor that into the post. More than anything, this post was written as a defense to myself, family, and friends about why crypto is worth digging into deeper even if there's some bad stuff that goes along with it. I wanted something I could link to and say "hey, it's a little more complicated that it seems - if you're interested, you can take a look here".

leshow 5y ago
With respect, I don't feel you've defended anything. Some blockchains may be less wasteful than others, but almost every popular one is very energy intensive and IMO you haven't even talked about the elephant in the room: do they provide value in the first place? You mention some lofty things that would be nice to solve like housing, but there exists no connection between blockchain and those things, and no information on how blockchain would re-organize incentives or even if it is the right tool for the job. I fail to see the defense here.

garren 5y ago

I’d say that the security matters more when considering transaction costs, no? The article mentions solana as being significantly less resource hungry than bitcoin or ethereum, but solana is using a variation of PoS as far as I can tell. He mentions that ethereum is moving to something more efficient, which I understand it is, but again that is PoS. POS might be less resource intensive, but is prone to it’s own kind of centralization (e.g., those with the largest stake make the rules ,or decide transactions as the case may be). So the author’s argument that blockchains don’t have to be as wildly inefficient as bitcoin isn’t wrong. However, so far, that improved efficiency introduces various degrees of centralization. Centralization in a system that is effectively marketed as being secure because of its decentralized nature.

cuteboy19 5y ago
Just because the energy consumption of Bitcoin increases doesn't mean that it becomes more secure. If an entity owning 48% of the hashrate increases its computing power then would Bitcoin become more or less secure?