2 ms·

> Well, I can't see the value of wasting so much energy for something looking for problems to solve. The energy is being paid for though, so it's competing in

> Well, I can't see the value of wasting so much energy for something looking for problems to solve. The energy is being paid for though, so it's competing in the same energy market as everything else. "Waste" becomes entirely subjective at that point. Also, Ethereum is now proof of stake, reducing it's power usage by something like 95%. PoS has its own pros and cons though. > Also the idea of replacing monetary systems built since the beginning of written history in a decade with cryptocurrencies is a bit naive. That's why I say it's still new despite being 13 years old. It's naive to think it's already failed when it's barely learnt to walk. Happy to be either totally ignored or told where I'm wrong.

bayindirh 4y ago
> The energy is being paid for though, so it's competing in the same energy market as everything else. "Waste" becomes entirely subjective at that point. Actually, "I can do whatever do with electricity, because I pay for it", is a wrong perspective, esp. in today's energy climate. Let's put the fact that Bitcoin and Proof of Work systems are very energy inefficient as of today, and paying for it doesn't make this inefficiencies right. Today, supercomputer centers discuss about reducing capacity, or add downtimes. CERN is discussing about temporarily shutting down some experiments, incl. accelerator ring. Hotels in Europe is fixing (locking in fact) their rooms to 18 degrees Celcius, and turning off heating the second events/conferences end. Last, but not the least storefronts are turning off their extremely efficient LED lighting at nights, after stores close. In this climate, running a very inefficient network which uses equivalent energy to a small-mid European country "just because we pay for it" is wrong on many levels. I'm normally very lassiez-faire person, but in the face of this energy crisis, climate change and other existential threats looming, saying that "we can do that because we pay for it", really grinds my gears. It's just carelessness. I don't know when we have detached from ethics this far, and this is disturbing (AI has the same problem for different reasons, but let's not digress). Ethereum's Proof of Stake migration is something I support. I still don't believe in cryptocurrencies and all utopia surrounding it, but at least one step in a right direction. > It's naive to think it's already failed when it's barely learnt to walk. I don't think it's failed, but it has not won any battles either (yet alone the war). It's just another instrument which will be normalized under banks at most. I'm saying that it won't arrive where people dream, but somewhere else, and that place will be boring, if it ever arrives. Any people evangelizing cryptocurrencies are excited for small money (personal finance), any people evangelizing it for medium-sized money (hedge funds, etc.) are running Ponzi schemes. This is not a good outlook from my perspective.
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  I don't disagree, but with politicians pointing out Bitcoin is a waste of energy whilst also doing nothing about climate change is the world we live in. As gross and demotivating and radicalising as that fact is, they're the boundaries society has chosen to judge: 1kw paid for is no better or worse than any other 1kw paid for. Anything beyond that and you're literally picking winners and losers - which wouldn't necessarily be wrong either, but it's politically suicidal and so it will not happen. Make non-renewable power prices higher. I'm for that, but Bitcoin and proof of work cryptocurrency mining will adapt to whatever new rules are put in place, and people will still complain that it's a waste because there's no direct benefit to them individually. I agree, however, that the popular understanding of the end result of cryptocurrencies could be something incredibly boring and potential anathema to the core reason for existence of Bitcoin such as central bank digital currencies. However, there will always be groups working against the interests of the establishment, creating new avenues of alternatives (here, direct proof of me being utopian).
  - bayindirh 4y ago
    Putting my words to the same bucket with politicians and the establishment, just because they somehow align is enough for me to leave this discussion here. I'm neither near to them, nor have the same perspective on climate change & the energy crisis, because of my vantage point, most probably. Have a nice day.
- c22 4y ago
  Most of the stores I've worked with leave their LED lights on at night because they want it to be apparent from the street when someone is in there robbing the store. They pay for it, so I guess it is their prerogative. Apparently the profit they make from sales is enough to offset this cost. I think the energy people spend on cryptocurrencies comes from a similar logic. If you want to stop people from externalizing the costs of energy waste you will have to increase the price of energy until the costs are covered, or else we will continue to run at a deficit at the expense of the planet. On the flip side of this coin, energy expansion has driven all known human (and evolutionary) progress to date, so it's a delicate ecosystem to mess with.

bayindirh 4y ago

> The energy is being paid for though, so it's competing in the same energy market as everything else. "Waste" becomes entirely subjective at that point. Actually, "I can do whatever do with electricity, because I pay for it", is a wrong perspective, esp. in today's energy climate. Let's put the fact that Bitcoin and Proof of Work systems are very energy inefficient as of today, and paying for it doesn't make this inefficiencies right. Today, supercomputer centers discuss about reducing capacity, or add downtimes. CERN is discussing about temporarily shutting down some experiments, incl. accelerator ring. Hotels in Europe is fixing (locking in fact) their rooms to 18 degrees Celcius, and turning off heating the second events/conferences end. Last, but not the least storefronts are turning off their extremely efficient LED lighting at nights, after stores close. In this climate, running a very inefficient network which uses equivalent energy to a small-mid European country "just because we pay for it" is wrong on many levels. I'm normally very lassiez-faire person, but in the face of this energy crisis, climate change and other existential threats looming, saying that "we can do that because we pay for it", really grinds my gears. It's just carelessness. I don't know when we have detached from ethics this far, and this is disturbing (AI has the same problem for different reasons, but let's not digress). Ethereum's Proof of Stake migration is something I support. I still don't believe in cryptocurrencies and all utopia surrounding it, but at least one step in a right direction. > It's naive to think it's already failed when it's barely learnt to walk. I don't think it's failed, but it has not won any battles either (yet alone the war). It's just another instrument which will be normalized under banks at most. I'm saying that it won't arrive where people dream, but somewhere else, and that place will be boring, if it ever arrives. Any people evangelizing cryptocurrencies are excited for small money (personal finance), any people evangelizing it for medium-sized money (hedge funds, etc.) are running Ponzi schemes. This is not a good outlook from my perspective.

BLKNSLVR 4y ago
I don't disagree, but with politicians pointing out Bitcoin is a waste of energy whilst also doing nothing about climate change is the world we live in. As gross and demotivating and radicalising as that fact is, they're the boundaries society has chosen to judge: 1kw paid for is no better or worse than any other 1kw paid for. Anything beyond that and you're literally picking winners and losers - which wouldn't necessarily be wrong either, but it's politically suicidal and so it will not happen. Make non-renewable power prices higher. I'm for that, but Bitcoin and proof of work cryptocurrency mining will adapt to whatever new rules are put in place, and people will still complain that it's a waste because there's no direct benefit to them individually. I agree, however, that the popular understanding of the end result of cryptocurrencies could be something incredibly boring and potential anathema to the core reason for existence of Bitcoin such as central bank digital currencies. However, there will always be groups working against the interests of the establishment, creating new avenues of alternatives (here, direct proof of me being utopian).
- bayindirh 4y ago
  Putting my words to the same bucket with politicians and the establishment, just because they somehow align is enough for me to leave this discussion here. I'm neither near to them, nor have the same perspective on climate change & the energy crisis, because of my vantage point, most probably. Have a nice day.
c22 4y ago
Most of the stores I've worked with leave their LED lights on at night because they want it to be apparent from the street when someone is in there robbing the store. They pay for it, so I guess it is their prerogative. Apparently the profit they make from sales is enough to offset this cost. I think the energy people spend on cryptocurrencies comes from a similar logic. If you want to stop people from externalizing the costs of energy waste you will have to increase the price of energy until the costs are covered, or else we will continue to run at a deficit at the expense of the planet. On the flip side of this coin, energy expansion has driven all known human (and evolutionary) progress to date, so it's a delicate ecosystem to mess with.