6 ms·

A couple of ideas that have been tossed around for relay abuse prevention: - Proof of work: computing some hash, which is not enough to be onerous but enough t

A couple of ideas that have been tossed around for relay abuse prevention: - Proof of work: computing some hash, which is not enough to be onerous but enough to reduce spam - micropayment over Bitcoin lightning network

noizejoy 4y ago
Proof of work via computing should be a non-starter for anyone caring for limiting environmental damage.
- jonstaab 4y ago
  Bitcoin is carbon-negative believe it or not. Not that CO2 emissions are a meaningful measure of environmental stewardship.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    I absolutely, unequivocally do not believe it. Bitcoin consumes 111TWh annually, the power consumption of the Netherlands, and emits 62Mt of CO2 per year, the same as Belarus. It also yields 42kT of e-waste per year. Each transaction produces 650kg of CO2, consumes 1160kWh of power (as much as 40 days consumption for the average American home) and produces 450g of e-waste (about the same as hucking your iPad into the garbage can each time you transact on-chain). 97% of all Bitcoin mining hardware will never successfully produce a single block in its entire useful life, going from factory, to space heater, to garbage can - while about 60% of all the power consumed comes from oil, natural gas and coal. So whoever sold producers the offsets I assume you must be alluding to better have replanted the entire Amazon rainforest by now. (Quick spoiler, carbon offsets are also a scam, generally speaking). To say you're going to need to get some sources is an understatement about as large at Bitcoin's environmental footprint. You can find all this in [1] or you can just reverse it yourself from the specs of the latest AntMiner and the current hash rate. Some napkin math is all you need. I'm honestly amazed people still believe something so trivially falsifiable, but with everything else going on in 2022... [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
    - ekianjo 4y ago
      > Bitcoin consumes 111TWh annually, the power consumption of the Netherlands, and emits 62Mt of CO2 per year, the same as Belarus. It also yields 42kT of e-waste per year. it only consumes as much as the complexity required to roll out new blocks. As its price goes down so does the energy required to find new blocks. It is not static.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        I gave current numbers. Surprisingly (and obviously unfortunately) the price change hasn't had an impact on energy consumption commensurate with the drop. There's a lot that goes into it - for instance cost basis of power: theft of power, graft, corruption, etc. If you're able to steal the power then it doesn't matter much so long as you can afford new miners. tl;dr: price per coin represents something of a bounding function on consumption of resources (including mining hardware and electricity) but it's not as tightly correlated as hoped. My point though is the idea all that consumption has been papered over by what I assume is buying some offsets - and now it's magically carbon neutral - is silly and obviously wrong.
    - kdragon 4y ago
      So much FUD. 1) miners profit from energy surplus. They do not create new power plants. Nobody is firing up a new coal plant to mine bitcoin. That is absurd. 2) miners have incentives to find and use wasted energy. For ex, flare gas recycling. Which actually helps the environment. 3) miners can turn on/off at will, and produce energy loads on demand. Which means they balance out the energy grid. Especially from erratic energy sources like wind and solar. This is already being deployed in some states. You are fighting on the wrong side buddy.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        (1) They literally reopened a natural gas plant in New York, where were you? [1] the broader point is this fossil capacity can just be turned off if we stopped wasting it on a bitmask lottery. You don’t have to bring on new capacity to cause harm (although they are doing that too). (2) burning flared methane is better than not but not flaring at all is best? There’s no such thing as stranded power, there’s only missing transmission infrastructure which is being incentivized not to come online through profitable waste at point of generation. (3) raising the baseline usage level through waste then turning it off when there’s a brownout level crisis is just an asinine plan to manage load that costs everyone money. Active demand management is an actual solution. So is grid storage. Also, “some states” is Texas, famously the worst energy grid in the US, home of the blackout. Meanwhile New York is banning wasting fossil fuel energy on miners. Anyways you seem to bring no data to the table other than a “nuh uh” and some obviously flawed apologism. No word on the ewaste? It appears to me you’re using the “facts u dislike” acronym expansion for FUD. [1] https://grist.org/technology/bitcoin-greenidge-seneca-lake-cryptocurrency/ https://grist.org/technology/bitcoin-greenidge-seneca-lake-c...
- couchand 4y ago
  Or wanting to operate in New York State as of this week!
  - irusensei 4y ago
    Is it forbidden to calculate in New York now? Had no idea.
    - couchand 4y ago
      I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse, but it bears repeating that there are plenty of simple activities that are forbidden by policy, and it would be just silly to argue that there shouldn't be any.

noizejoy 4y ago

Proof of work via computing should be a non-starter for anyone caring for limiting environmental damage.

jonstaab 4y ago
Bitcoin is carbon-negative believe it or not. Not that CO2 emissions are a meaningful measure of environmental stewardship.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  I absolutely, unequivocally do not believe it. Bitcoin consumes 111TWh annually, the power consumption of the Netherlands, and emits 62Mt of CO2 per year, the same as Belarus. It also yields 42kT of e-waste per year. Each transaction produces 650kg of CO2, consumes 1160kWh of power (as much as 40 days consumption for the average American home) and produces 450g of e-waste (about the same as hucking your iPad into the garbage can each time you transact on-chain). 97% of all Bitcoin mining hardware will never successfully produce a single block in its entire useful life, going from factory, to space heater, to garbage can - while about 60% of all the power consumed comes from oil, natural gas and coal. So whoever sold producers the offsets I assume you must be alluding to better have replanted the entire Amazon rainforest by now. (Quick spoiler, carbon offsets are also a scam, generally speaking). To say you're going to need to get some sources is an understatement about as large at Bitcoin's environmental footprint. You can find all this in [1] or you can just reverse it yourself from the specs of the latest AntMiner and the current hash rate. Some napkin math is all you need. I'm honestly amazed people still believe something so trivially falsifiable, but with everything else going on in 2022... [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    > Bitcoin consumes 111TWh annually, the power consumption of the Netherlands, and emits 62Mt of CO2 per year, the same as Belarus. It also yields 42kT of e-waste per year. it only consumes as much as the complexity required to roll out new blocks. As its price goes down so does the energy required to find new blocks. It is not static.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      I gave current numbers. Surprisingly (and obviously unfortunately) the price change hasn't had an impact on energy consumption commensurate with the drop. There's a lot that goes into it - for instance cost basis of power: theft of power, graft, corruption, etc. If you're able to steal the power then it doesn't matter much so long as you can afford new miners. tl;dr: price per coin represents something of a bounding function on consumption of resources (including mining hardware and electricity) but it's not as tightly correlated as hoped. My point though is the idea all that consumption has been papered over by what I assume is buying some offsets - and now it's magically carbon neutral - is silly and obviously wrong.
  - kdragon 4y ago
    So much FUD. 1) miners profit from energy surplus. They do not create new power plants. Nobody is firing up a new coal plant to mine bitcoin. That is absurd. 2) miners have incentives to find and use wasted energy. For ex, flare gas recycling. Which actually helps the environment. 3) miners can turn on/off at will, and produce energy loads on demand. Which means they balance out the energy grid. Especially from erratic energy sources like wind and solar. This is already being deployed in some states. You are fighting on the wrong side buddy.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      (1) They literally reopened a natural gas plant in New York, where were you? [1] the broader point is this fossil capacity can just be turned off if we stopped wasting it on a bitmask lottery. You don’t have to bring on new capacity to cause harm (although they are doing that too). (2) burning flared methane is better than not but not flaring at all is best? There’s no such thing as stranded power, there’s only missing transmission infrastructure which is being incentivized not to come online through profitable waste at point of generation. (3) raising the baseline usage level through waste then turning it off when there’s a brownout level crisis is just an asinine plan to manage load that costs everyone money. Active demand management is an actual solution. So is grid storage. Also, “some states” is Texas, famously the worst energy grid in the US, home of the blackout. Meanwhile New York is banning wasting fossil fuel energy on miners. Anyways you seem to bring no data to the table other than a “nuh uh” and some obviously flawed apologism. No word on the ewaste? It appears to me you’re using the “facts u dislike” acronym expansion for FUD. [1] https://grist.org/technology/bitcoin-greenidge-seneca-lake-cryptocurrency/ https://grist.org/technology/bitcoin-greenidge-seneca-lake-c...
couchand 4y ago
Or wanting to operate in New York State as of this week!
- irusensei 4y ago
  Is it forbidden to calculate in New York now? Had no idea.
  - couchand 4y ago
    I suspect you're being intentionally obtuse, but it bears repeating that there are plenty of simple activities that are forbidden by policy, and it would be just silly to argue that there shouldn't be any.