4 ms·

The power is used to secure the system, not to perform transactions. The transaction rate has always been the same, the power use has gone up with the value of

The power is used to secure the system, not to perform transactions. The transaction rate has always been the same, the power use has gone up with the value of the contents (to resist a 51% attack) Some people feel strongly this security is worth it. Some feel strongly that it isn’t (but one suspects their objection is really to the lack of central control)

2muchcoffeeman 5y ago
Climate change may be the problem that defines our generation. In that light, and given the ludicrous power estimates that blockchains use, are we not morally obligated to kill all the blockchain projects if these estimates are in the right ballpark?
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Only if you believe climate change defines this generation.
- Tenoke 5y ago
  At most we might be obliged to kill the worst (and a lot of other non-crypto things) but killing all makes no sense when there's many with fairly neglible impact.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
    Nature abhors a vacuum: if you kill the most popular PoW scheme, the little ones will dutifully step up and use just as much power. I don’t think there’s any world we can live in where PoW schemes will have “negligible impact,” which only heartens the justification for banning all of them, now.
FabHK 5y ago
To the extent that blocks are assembled and validated not by one node (which is all that would be necessary), but by (tens? hundreds? of) thousands, there is massive duplication of the actual work by a factor of 1e4 or 1e5 or more. But, you are right, even that enormous inefficiency is peanuts compared to the Proof of Waste, which ramps it up to unimaginable proportions. (A single BTC transaction uses up as much electricity as a 2 person household in Germany in a year, and produces 2 iPhones worth of electronic waste.)
- paulsutter 5y ago
  The transactions don’t use the power, the power is used to protect the contents of the chain (sorry i intended this as a reply to a different comment, not yours, not sure how i did that!)
  - FabHK 5y ago
    We agree. Around 0.000001% of the power is used for transactions, which is way more than necessary due to duplication, and 99.999999% for "protection".
    - FabHK 4y ago
      I might have been a bit too eager with the 0's and 9's, might be able to cut half of them.
tromp 5y ago
> The power is used to secure the system, not to perform transactions. This looks to be the case now, with block reward being dominated by the block subsidy. But by design, the latter reduces exponentially over time, so that within a few decades, the security will have to come predominantly from transaction fees.

2muchcoffeeman 5y ago

Climate change may be the problem that defines our generation. In that light, and given the ludicrous power estimates that blockchains use, are we not morally obligated to kill all the blockchain projects if these estimates are in the right ballpark?

lostmsu 5y ago
Only if you believe climate change defines this generation.
Tenoke 5y ago
At most we might be obliged to kill the worst (and a lot of other non-crypto things) but killing all makes no sense when there's many with fairly neglible impact.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  Nature abhors a vacuum: if you kill the most popular PoW scheme, the little ones will dutifully step up and use just as much power. I don’t think there’s any world we can live in where PoW schemes will have “negligible impact,” which only heartens the justification for banning all of them, now.

FabHK 5y ago

To the extent that blocks are assembled and validated not by one node (which is all that would be necessary), but by (tens? hundreds? of) thousands, there is massive duplication of the actual work by a factor of 1e4 or 1e5 or more. But, you are right, even that enormous inefficiency is peanuts compared to the Proof of Waste, which ramps it up to unimaginable proportions. (A single BTC transaction uses up as much electricity as a 2 person household in Germany in a year, and produces 2 iPhones worth of electronic waste.)

paulsutter 5y ago
The transactions don’t use the power, the power is used to protect the contents of the chain (sorry i intended this as a reply to a different comment, not yours, not sure how i did that!)
- FabHK 5y ago
  We agree. Around 0.000001% of the power is used for transactions, which is way more than necessary due to duplication, and 99.999999% for "protection".
  - FabHK 4y ago
    I might have been a bit too eager with the 0's and 9's, might be able to cut half of them.

tromp 5y ago

> The power is used to secure the system, not to perform transactions. This looks to be the case now, with block reward being dominated by the block subsidy. But by design, the latter reduces exponentially over time, so that within a few decades, the security will have to come predominantly from transaction fees.