jude-

46 ms·

391.
by jude- 6y ago
No need to talk about me like I'm not here ;) The energy spent on block production is something that, in theory, _could_ be regulated so as to reduce or cap the pollution it may create. We already do this with other industries, like b
392.
by jude- 6y ago
There's lots of misdirected anger these last few days towards Bitcoin. First, the only thing that's energy-intensive about Bitcoin is block production. Making transactions, relaying them, validating them and storing them have neg
393.
by jude- 6y ago
There's lots of misdirected anger these last few days towards Bitcoin. First, the only thing that's energy-intensive about Bitcoin is block production. Making transactions, relaying them, validating them and storing them have neg
394.
by jude- 6y ago
Government competence means hiring officials that do not allow the misappropriation of the people's resources, no matter the upside. It also means structuring the incentives for being official such that doing the right thing is incent
395.
by jude- 6y ago
(*principle)
396.
by jude- 6y ago
The parent was talking about the cost per transaction being high. In reality, that number is basically 0. The entire cost of Bitcoin mining is in block production, no matter how many or few transactions there are. If you're going to
397.
by jude- 6y ago
Moreover, anyone who can stake their tokens to produce blocks will never sell you enough tokens that you'll be able to compete with them for future block rewards. Put another way, the value of a staker's token-minting stake is at
398.
by jude- 6y ago
Bitcoin transactions take negligible amounts of electricity to produce and validate. The fact that you can spin up a Bitcoin node on a Raspberry Pi is trivial proof of this. Block production, on the other hand, takes as much energy as the
399.
by jude- 6y ago
BTC has nothing to do with the incompetence of Iran's government.
400.
by jude- 6y ago
Why the downvotes? If one day we have miniaturized cold fusion reactors that could sustainably give your house 1 GW/hour of clean power over its lifetime, you would you turn them down?
401.
by jude- 6y ago
This is the basic principal of operation for a Lightning payment channel.
402.
by jude- 6y ago
As long as it's green power, who cares how much gets used? If we could put miniature 1 GW power plants in every home that were 100% renewable and didn't pollute, we would.
403.
by jude- 6y ago
Here's a real-world example: I sign and give you a transaction that, if you relay within the next 1000 blocks, will give you some BTC. You can choose relay it, to let it expire, or to resell it to someone else by signing another trans
404.
by jude- 6y ago
Right -- miners are selling you block space in which to store your transactions. That's the thing everyone's buying with Bitcoin, and that's the thing miners are spending all their energy on -- putting your transactions into
405.
by jude- 6y ago
Meanwhile, my ancient laptop can generate and validate many thousands of transactions per second, using just 10s of watts. In fact, the negligible cost to validate transactions is exactly what allows you to run a node at home, on a humble
406.
by jude- 6y ago
It's pretty hard to hide the fossil fuel-burning power plant generating your PoW. If your local government or citizens won't stop you from polluting the environment, other governments can impose retaliatory tariffs or even sancti
407.
by jude- 6y ago
Point of clarity: Bitcoin transactions take negligible energy to produce and validate. It's block production that's energy-intensive, and it's the same regardless of how big or full blocks are. Like any energy-intensive indu
408.
by jude- 6y ago
> We actually know of consensus protocols that require synchrony including between participants and clients that go up to 99% fault tolerance for both liveness and safety; in fact Lamport himself described one in his original paper (reme
409.
by jude- 6y ago
> There is no legitimate sense in which PoS _is_ an instance of "rich have more power and get richer" but PoW is not. In PoW, miners must sell their tokens to buy capital-intensive mining equipment and power to stay competitive
410.
by jude- 6y ago
No distributed consensus algorithm can tolerate more than f faults with 3f+1 replicas and maintain liveness. This includes Bitcoin (replace "replicas" with "hashes per unit time").
411.
by jude- 6y ago
I see you still haven't answered my question about how pre-Segwit nodes will behave. If you don't know, just say so. > This is the cry of someone who can't explain what they claim. I don't know where you formed a sol
412.
by jude- 6y ago
> Who cares? That doesn't matter at all. Other miners will pick up the found block and any node that ignores what they are doing will just unsync themselves and become useless. What good is a block if no exchange or wallet will acce
413.
by jude- 6y ago
> For some reason you seem to think that miners can't send out their own blocks. Of course they can do anything a simple relay node can do. I never said that they can't. I said that other nodes can choose to ignore them. >
414.
by jude- 6y ago
The task of relaying blocks falls to every node; you are correct there (and I never claimed otherwise). But, if a miner produces a block that the vast majority of nodes reject, then the network effectively splits into two parts -- one part
415.
by jude- 6y ago
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. Bitcoin's security is ultimately underpinned by each node being able to independently validate the chainstate. If nodes couldn't be guaranteed to receive all blocks on the best fork -
416.
by jude- 6y ago
Governments could pass laws tomorrow requiring all crypto mining use 100% renewable energy by a certain date, just as like they are doing with cars. They could also pass minimum efficiency standards for mining, just as they do for heating
417.
by jude- 6y ago
So, pass laws requiring crypto mining to use 100% renewable energy? Sounds like a win-win to me -- no greenhouse gases from crypto mining, and lots of investment opportunities for high-power green tech.
418.
by jude- 6y ago
Non-mining nodes are still responsible for storing and relaying blocks. If no one stores and relays your block, was it ever mined?
419.
by jude- 6y ago
Since when does Bitcoin have to use greenhouse gas-emitting sources of power?
420.
by jude- 6y ago
That's not really true. If the vast majority of user- and exchange-operated nodes decided a miner's well-formed block is invalid, then other miners would be dissuaded from building on it, and would instead orphan it.

More ›