The argument on the other side of the coin is that renewable electricity is often produced in excess, and when it cannot be stored, mining bitcoin is an effective way to convert that excess electricity into money. Normally, that energy would just be wasted, reducing the efficiency and economic viability of renewable electricity sources.
This argument is sound, but the problem is that it doesn’t describe reality. The reality is that Bitcoin miners set up shop wherever electricity is the cheapest and consume inordinate amounts of electricity whether that electricity is in excess or not, and whether that electricity was generated renewably or not.
First of all I doubt the profits generated from this go towards anything or anyone worthwhile, second, doesn’t bitcoin mining cause diminishing returns individually and across the network? Like aren’t the problems getting harder and more expensive computationally?
The mining difficulty adjusts automatically so that 1 block is produced every 10 minutes on average.
More miners join, more difficult and expensive it gets, to the point it forces the least efficient miners to be turned off, or seek cheaper electricity. If too many leave or the price of BTC raises, more people are incentivized to join.
More miners join, more difficult and expensive it gets, to the point it forces the least efficient miners to be turned off, or seek cheaper electricity.
So wealth continues to be concentrated by the wealthy while polluting a bunch.
What a huge waste in times where we have global warming and urgently need to cut our carbon footprint a bunch of greedy people are living like there is no tomorrow.
It’s not necessary to perform any of the functions of crypto, including money laundering. That makes it pure overhead; pure waste. There are offshore banks that facilitate tax fraud and other criminal activity. Crypto, somehow, allows exchanges to escape the scrutiny that falls on these banks. Objectively, there is no good reason why all this waste should let you avoid scrutiny of regulators or police.
Mining is barely transactional in nature. Pretty much all of it is calculating hashes, which, on one hand, is super important as part of Proof-of-Work consensus, the most decentralized one we have, but on the other we have other reasonably secure options that waste two orders of magnitude less power.
On main chain. Via lightning you can support all the capacity of Visa/Mastercard/banks and then some. Main chain provides the security for lightning, lightning provides the transaction storage space and infrastructure.
The lightning infrastructure, if you graph it, looks very similar to existing global payment networks. The difference is that transactions settle instantly because they are protected by the underlying blockchain and they are automated with no middlemen to delay things. No complicated currency conversions, no banks negotiating liquidity in blocks manually and having to buy/sell other assets to stay in balance, no bank holidays, less fees. Which means you can take your money from person-to-person faster, which reduces friction in the economy. Which is exactly what a good currency should be.
For those in blissful ignorance: This uses so-called channels between participants. Opening a lightning channel means, basically, putting bitcoin in “escrow” on the blockchain. This requires multiple transactions on the blockchain. Bitcoin doesn’t even have enough capacity to open a channel for each baby being born.
The amount that both sides put in “escrow” is the max payment imbalance that a channel can accept. Say, you want to use a channel to buy a car for $20k, then you need a channel that both you and the other guy have put in $20k in bitcoin.
If some calamity happens, these funds are lost in nirvana.
While Lightning doesn’t need you to open a channel for every new recipient and has smart routing through other participants, I still think it’s an inconvenient solution we don’t have to take.
We have Solana, a 300.000+ TPS Layer-1. We have much smarter Ethereum Layer-2’s that don’t require this bullshit. We have many ways to tackle this problem, it’s the hyperfocus on Bitcoin that, in my opinion, makes people go for Lightning network anyway.
Solana is incredibly centralized compared to BTC. The higher the TPS on your base layer the harder it is to meet the hardware requirements to run a full node. Scaling in layers is the solution.
Eth’s L2s are a confusing mess. They offer a variety of degrees of security and decentralization, some of them, like Polygon, are a network run with only 15 validators, yikes! And many of them are secured by a single bridge. There have been plenty of notable bridge hacks, it is not fun when your currency gets depegged.
Solana currently has 1777 validators - which doesn’t look like much compared to Bitcoin, but is actually way more than enough for any practical intents and purposes.
This requires multiple transactions on the blockchain
It literally requires one to open and one to close, so like $1 most of the time in fees. If you have a custodial wallet, it requires zero. You can keep a channel open forever. Within that channel, you can have essentially infinite transactions between you and any other party and you can use the channel to route payments to anybody on lightning network. All those transactions settle within a second and have fees measured in pennies. A channel doesn’t need to be opened for every baby being born, babies don’t use money. Seriously though, there are additional improvements coming down the pipe (like channel factories) which enable you to use one on-chain tx to make hundreds of channels. People do not understand the scale lightning works at.
The amount that both sides put in “escrow” is the max payment imbalance that a channel can accept
All of this is abstracted away for you as a user, you don’t have to worry about it, especially for custodial wallets. Most people earn and spend roughly the same amount each month, so liquidity isn’t anything they ever need to think about. There are also automated ways to rent inbound liquidity which are incredibly cheap, that can be done with self-custody wallets.
Say, you want to use a channel to buy a car for $20k, then you need a channel that both you and the other guy have put in $20k in bitcoin.
Wrong. If you want to buy a car for $20k, you have to put $20k into lightning. The other guy doesn’t have to put in anything aside from the $1 in on-chain tx fees to be on the lightning network in the first place, which he doesn’t even pay if he has a custodial wallet. Then you send that 20k to the guy with the car. Now you can receive up to 20k in payments in that channel. Not that you would spend $20k via lightning, if you are buying a car and moving that much money, use main chain.
If some calamity happens, these funds are lost in nirvana.
Calamity doesn’t happen, funds don’t get lost. Custodial wallets literally never encounter this, it’s all handled by your custodian. Non-custodial wallets also rarely encounter this, all the incentives are lined up to make “force closes” (which is what I assume you are referring to) rare. And of those force closes, the only risk is that your counterparty publishes an old version of the channel. You have like five days to correct and publish your more recent version to claim your funds. And if they tried to cheat you out of your funds, you get your funds and they pay a penalty. Given that watchtowers are basically automated, this never happens. Your funds from one of your channels might be stuck on-chain for a few days at worst, this is not a nightmare scenario. Banks and traditional payment processors have random holds all the time, especially when dealing with anything international. The difference is, the funds in lightning are always yours because you have the key. There is no scenario where when properly used, you lose funds in lightning.
I can see that you don’t know how this works. That’s ok. It’s nonsense. No one needs to know about that.
Custodial wallets work just like checking accounts, without the regulation. Crypto victims like to say: Not your keys, not your coins. The custodian owes you the crypto that you have in your account/custodial wallet. You own a debt payable in crypto. If the custodian goes bankrupt and can’t pay the debts, you are screwed (as so many crypto victims have found out to their shock). The money in a normal checking account is covered by a mandatory deposit insurance scheme, so you don’t have to worry about that.
Because custodial accounts replicate checking accounts, they can be just as fast and efficient, in themselves. Having to pay the upkeep of the blockchain in the background means, that they can’t be as cheap as actual checking accounts. If a custodial wallet offers you better conditions than a checking account, they must be gambling with the crypto (that you loaned them) in some way, that a normal bank is prohibited from doing with customer funds.
For the sake of completeness: Exchanges in more regulated jurisdictions work like stock brokerages. They must hold the assets. In case of bankruptcy, they are special assets that belong to the customer and are not used to pay creditors in general.
Is it not a way in which some governments could collaborate to end this Bitcoin madness?
Genuinely question.
Like maybe some big countries could agree to collaborate and join resources to make a 51% attack and bring Bitcoin price to 0 so people stop wasting resources on it.
2% of enery usage for something that do not add any value to society is INSANE.
Some have tried, they have all failed. Bitcoin is international. A 51% attack is so implausibly expensive that nobody really has the resources to pull it off. Even if you had enough money and energy to burn, there is the small problem of acquiring enough of the specialized hardware to do it (ASIC miners), and potentially the specs and fab to make that hardware. People will see it coming a mile away. Don’t want to use ASICs? Enjoy at least a 100x increase in energy and equipment costs. And it gets more expensive every year. If you had that much money to put into destroying Bitcoin, it would be much better spent on an ad campaign telling people Bitcoin was bad than doing a 51% attack.
A 51% attack doesn’t prove Bitcoin is broken, it proves the protocol is working exactly as expected. A 51% attack causes a temporary fork. This happens all the time organically when two miners find the next block at the same time, it’s a natural part of the protocol. That’s why for really large or important transactions on main chain, you wait a few blocks before considering them fully secured.
Bitcoin’s value to society is the ability to easily transfer money from point A to B and having a clear fiscal policy it has kept to for 15 years, 365 days a year, 24/7 without a single hour of downtime, a bank holiday, or getting hacked. There’s a reason big money like hedge funds and private banking are investing in it: it’s actually useful and has massive potential. The market cap of Bitcoin is 850 BILLION USD, that’s bigger than the GDP of Sweden or Israel or Vietnam. People use it to move over a trillion dollars of value a year. You can debate how much of that movement is trading & speculation vs use as a currency, but it’s a trillion nonetheless. I personally pay for things regularly with Bitcoin, you’d be surprised how many places you can spend it when you start looking. And it’s available to anybody with a cellphone and halfway reliable internet access, including the billions of people who are “unbanked” and lack access to stable banking infrastructure.
Transactions on Bitcoin lightning occur in under a second and cost pennies in fees. That’s to send it across the room or across the globe. Remittance services and bank wires use just as much energy and cost 10x-1000x as much. And they waste not just energy but human capital as well, we no longer need humans manually sending bank wires like it’s 1910. You just don’t see headlines about the energy impact of bank wires or western union because it’s not novel, we just accept it as a cost of our financial system.
That’s not even getting into the secondary costs to the environment of running a society on an economy based on an inflationary currency which requires that currency be rapidly spent because it’s getting constantly devalued. That’s a great strategy to rapidly industrialize the world, but it’s not a great strategy on a globe with limited resources. Tell me, if you knew your dollar would be worth 10% more next year, would you be more hesitant to spend it? Might you consume less if you knew saving money in your bank account would actually cause it’s value to stay the same or increase over time? Might you focus your spending more on quality products that will last instead of just buying the cheapest thing because if it breaks, you can just buy a new one? This isn’t just on a personal level, this same kind of calculus is used by big investment firms to build everything that won’t last. Buildings, stadiums, entire cities, financed with money that is constantly losing value. Bitcoin’s value relative to goods and services will fluctuate like any currency does, but the supply of the currency does not increase. There are 21 million which will ever be minted. Your 0.1BTC will always be 0.1BTC and will always represent 0.1/128M% of the total supply. If the Bitcoin economy grows, you share in that growth and the value it produces instead of seeing the difference printed away and given to whoever controls the money supply and whoever they want to give it to.
Skip ad. Bitcoin is pumped through ridiculous leverage and printing of “stable” coins like tether. The scam hasn’t unraveled yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.
Stablecoins are a house of cards built around stably relating to another house of cards which is the entire inflationary fiat system. Every single asset and currency is speculated on via the open market. Bitcoin is no exception. If it is overvalued or undervalued, that creates market opportunities for people to exploit the difference. The market has decided it’s worth a certain amount today, it will be another amount tomorrow. Not unique to Bitcoin. Every year people have said Bitcoin was “overvalued” and powered purely by hype, on average, the market has decided they were wrong the following year.
Any honestly-run stablecoin inherently has to collateralize their coin with something. They can buy BTC (and do), they can buy USD (and do), they can buy wheat futures (but I’m not sure they do). Ultimately, a diverse portfolio would probably be wisest. Yet you don’t see anybody complaining that “USD is being pumped by Tether/USDC”. Why? Because it’s not a problem.
The economics of Bitcoin mining are a bit weird in that it impossible to make it more energy efficient.
The system auto adjusts the computational complexity of mining bitcoin so that it always costs a little less than one bitcoin to mine a bitcoin, and at scale the only variable expense is electricity so as the price of bitcoin goes up, so does the amount of money that must be spent on electricity.
Current 6.25 Bitcoin are mined every 10 minutes. So globally about $2 million must be spent on electricity every hour.
In a little over 2 months the block reward cuts in half to only 3.125 bitcoin every 10 minutes. That will have the side effect of reducing the money spent on electricity for mining bitcoin so long as the price of bitcoin remains the same.
“The System” is not really that intelligent. The statement that “It will always cost a little less than one Bitcoin to mine a Bitcoin” is only correct because the incentives in the system steer everyone toward that. There’s no direct link between the two. Bitcoin Miners are intently aware of how much energy they consume, and if the price of Bitcoin dips below what they are paying for electricity, they likely will shut down their rigs, because no one wants to mine at a loss.
The real issue with Bitcoin is that the algorithm used to find more Bitcoins is kind of basic in terms of its difficulty mechanism. It was the first one ever used for cryptocurrency. It was originally envisioned that owners could mine more bitcoin with spare cycles on their CPU, but since it was first designed, people have come up with custom mining chips that can mine faster and much more power efficiently. But paradoxically, this has made things worse, because the bitcoin mining difficulty simply scaled up to account for all that. So now the only way to mine Bitcoin is to have this custom hardware – it’s too hard to do any other way – and you need so much of it that you are just as power hungry as before.
There are other algorithms that don’t have these same problems. They have been designed to use other computing resources (like gobs of memory) that are much harder to concentrate on custom chips, making it much more expensive (monetarily and spatially as well as computationally) to simply spam more of them. Ethereum uses a totally different model now that doesn’t rely directly on power consumption at all.
OG Bitcoiners seem to think that the massive power consumption is a net benefit, because it is spent in making the overall network more secure, and less likely to be attacked. So they will never try to change their block algorithm, even though other projects are just as secure with less power consumed. And if that opinion holds, the only way to eliminate this source of power consumption would be to crash the price, and cause the Bitcoin miners to have to mine at a huge loss to continue.
The whole point of mining is to arrange transactions into blocks, and then generate a cryptographic hash of the block that meets some difficulty criteria. It costs some small amount of computing to do that. But an astonishingly large number of hashes won’t meet that difficulty criteria, which is why miners have to try a gazillion times to find one that works.
However, once a block has a valid hash, it is added to the chain. Then, the hash of that valid block must be used in the next block, which will be equally hard to find.
By “security”, what is really meant is “How can I be sure that a transaction can’t be undone once it is committed”? And it’s because all these blocks are stacked on top of each other, and cryptographically related. Once a transaction appears in a block, and a few blocks get mined on top of it, it becomes prohibitively difficult to un-do it, because someone would have to put in the computing power to re-authenticate a string of blocks, all while the rest of the network is adding blocks to the valid chain at a faster rate.
The security of this whole arrangement has so far been working good as well.
In order for someone to try and perform a 51% attack, they’ll need to either compromise a large swathe of existing miners (e.g if the government seized control) or create/acquire hardware totaling more than 100% of the existing network today plus growth while you attempt to build more than 100% and then maintain growth over the rest of the network.
As the network grows that becomes exceedingly more difficult to perform.
I have really high hopes for something like proof of work stake, but it’s not without it’s own problems either, and with Ethereum, it’s the first massive scale test, so it’s not as battle tested as proof of work yet, although it’s been used in smaller projects so there has been some testing. With more money on the line though, comes more will to try and break it, or use an exploit you may have held back beforehand.
One interesting difference with POW/POS is that if a miner/entity does somehow perform an attack, they keep the hardware and can continue to try. With POS, they should get slashed in which case the money is gone. But with POW you have the barrier of actually acquiring the correct amount of hardware, meanwhile in POS, you just need the money so there’s no manufacturing/lead time and will be easier to achieve by state actors.
My main issue with Bitcoin isn’t even the POW vs POS angle, it’s the fact that the core devs see no problem with their current POW algorithm, which is not designed to put any bounds at all on energy consumption. But I also think they should have increased the block size, and you can see where that discussion went.
I think what needs to be considered here is what we consider a waste of electricity. Efficiency calculations are dependent on waste, So I personally think electric cars are a waste of resources, they consume electricity to run and consume non renewable resources to produce just to move a maximum of 1-5* people per journey. Whereas an electric which still uses this resources can move over 10x that amount per journey, and trains over 30x that amount per journey.
So to me that’s energy inefficiency at the consumer point.
Now let’s look at energy generation and transfer. At the moment, alot of energy production is a for profit business, Company A builds a solar farm, Company B builds a Coal power plant and Company C (This would be overseen by the government, not a private company) builds a nuclear reactor. All 3 of these companies produce various amounts of electricity with different efficiencies, but all must be sold at the same price. It might only cost £0.01/KwH on the solar farm to produce, but must be sold for £0.33/KwH, the coal would be £0.27/KwH and nuclear would be £0.45/KwH.
You have 3 generation methods, each with strengths and weaknesses all being forced to sell for the same price. Normally in a capitalist system you see “Competition” (not really) on the market. Company A would say “We’re cheap, but can only guarantee 97% uptime due XYZ issues”, most homes would be fine with me this. Company B + C “We’re not as cheap but we can offer 99.9% uptime” This looks great for companies needing that security in uptime.
I’ve gone on a tangent and can’t be bothered finishing this post maybe someone else will.
Does your client allow sorting by controversial/score/down votes? I haven’t seen that option, which on one hand I’m happy for (one of my self-destructive reddit habits) but is also sometimes is so satisfying.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@lemmy.world
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
English
Honestly surprised it is that low.
I can’t believe its that high, what a fucking big, stupid, dumbdumb thing. So wasteful and for what benefit?
The argument on the other side of the coin is that renewable electricity is often produced in excess, and when it cannot be stored, mining bitcoin is an effective way to convert that excess electricity into money. Normally, that energy would just be wasted, reducing the efficiency and economic viability of renewable electricity sources.
This argument is sound, but the problem is that it doesn’t describe reality. The reality is that Bitcoin miners set up shop wherever electricity is the cheapest and consume inordinate amounts of electricity whether that electricity is in excess or not, and whether that electricity was generated renewably or not.
First of all I doubt the profits generated from this go towards anything or anyone worthwhile, second, doesn’t bitcoin mining cause diminishing returns individually and across the network? Like aren’t the problems getting harder and more expensive computationally?
The mining difficulty adjusts automatically so that 1 block is produced every 10 minutes on average.
More miners join, more difficult and expensive it gets, to the point it forces the least efficient miners to be turned off, or seek cheaper electricity. If too many leave or the price of BTC raises, more people are incentivized to join.
So wealth continues to be concentrated by the wealthy while polluting a bunch.
You know the business is legit, when the only complaint is “BuT ThE RiCh!!”
Benefit is a better world.
What a huge waste in times where we have global warming and urgently need to cut our carbon footprint a bunch of greedy people are living like there is no tomorrow.
There is no tomorrow, because of global warming.
removed by mod
You need the same infrastructure for any electronic payment system.
What you don’t need for anything is crypto “mining”, which is almost pure overhead. That’s what the article is about.
removed by mod
It’s not necessary to perform any of the functions of crypto, including money laundering. That makes it pure overhead; pure waste. There are offshore banks that facilitate tax fraud and other criminal activity. Crypto, somehow, allows exchanges to escape the scrutiny that falls on these banks. Objectively, there is no good reason why all this waste should let you avoid scrutiny of regulators or police.
Mining is barely transactional in nature. Pretty much all of it is calculating hashes, which, on one hand, is super important as part of Proof-of-Work consensus, the most decentralized one we have, but on the other we have other reasonably secure options that waste two orders of magnitude less power.
All that energy for bitcoin only supports 7 tx/s. Digital dollar payments do tens if not hundres of thousands per second.
removed by mod
Transactions per second
On main chain. Via lightning you can support all the capacity of Visa/Mastercard/banks and then some. Main chain provides the security for lightning, lightning provides the transaction storage space and infrastructure.
The lightning infrastructure, if you graph it, looks very similar to existing global payment networks. The difference is that transactions settle instantly because they are protected by the underlying blockchain and they are automated with no middlemen to delay things. No complicated currency conversions, no banks negotiating liquidity in blocks manually and having to buy/sell other assets to stay in balance, no bank holidays, less fees. Which means you can take your money from person-to-person faster, which reduces friction in the economy. Which is exactly what a good currency should be.
Are you paid to post that nonsense?
For those in blissful ignorance: This uses so-called channels between participants. Opening a lightning channel means, basically, putting bitcoin in “escrow” on the blockchain. This requires multiple transactions on the blockchain. Bitcoin doesn’t even have enough capacity to open a channel for each baby being born.
The amount that both sides put in “escrow” is the max payment imbalance that a channel can accept. Say, you want to use a channel to buy a car for $20k, then you need a channel that both you and the other guy have put in $20k in bitcoin.
If some calamity happens, these funds are lost in nirvana.
While Lightning doesn’t need you to open a channel for every new recipient and has smart routing through other participants, I still think it’s an inconvenient solution we don’t have to take.
We have Solana, a 300.000+ TPS Layer-1. We have much smarter Ethereum Layer-2’s that don’t require this bullshit. We have many ways to tackle this problem, it’s the hyperfocus on Bitcoin that, in my opinion, makes people go for Lightning network anyway.
Solana is incredibly centralized compared to BTC. The higher the TPS on your base layer the harder it is to meet the hardware requirements to run a full node. Scaling in layers is the solution.
Eth’s L2s are a confusing mess. They offer a variety of degrees of security and decentralization, some of them, like Polygon, are a network run with only 15 validators, yikes! And many of them are secured by a single bridge. There have been plenty of notable bridge hacks, it is not fun when your currency gets depegged.
Solana currently has 1777 validators - which doesn’t look like much compared to Bitcoin, but is actually way more than enough for any practical intents and purposes.
It literally requires one to open and one to close, so like $1 most of the time in fees. If you have a custodial wallet, it requires zero. You can keep a channel open forever. Within that channel, you can have essentially infinite transactions between you and any other party and you can use the channel to route payments to anybody on lightning network. All those transactions settle within a second and have fees measured in pennies. A channel doesn’t need to be opened for every baby being born, babies don’t use money. Seriously though, there are additional improvements coming down the pipe (like channel factories) which enable you to use one on-chain tx to make hundreds of channels. People do not understand the scale lightning works at.
All of this is abstracted away for you as a user, you don’t have to worry about it, especially for custodial wallets. Most people earn and spend roughly the same amount each month, so liquidity isn’t anything they ever need to think about. There are also automated ways to rent inbound liquidity which are incredibly cheap, that can be done with self-custody wallets.
Wrong. If you want to buy a car for $20k, you have to put $20k into lightning. The other guy doesn’t have to put in anything aside from the $1 in on-chain tx fees to be on the lightning network in the first place, which he doesn’t even pay if he has a custodial wallet. Then you send that 20k to the guy with the car. Now you can receive up to 20k in payments in that channel. Not that you would spend $20k via lightning, if you are buying a car and moving that much money, use main chain.
Calamity doesn’t happen, funds don’t get lost. Custodial wallets literally never encounter this, it’s all handled by your custodian. Non-custodial wallets also rarely encounter this, all the incentives are lined up to make “force closes” (which is what I assume you are referring to) rare. And of those force closes, the only risk is that your counterparty publishes an old version of the channel. You have like five days to correct and publish your more recent version to claim your funds. And if they tried to cheat you out of your funds, you get your funds and they pay a penalty. Given that watchtowers are basically automated, this never happens. Your funds from one of your channels might be stuck on-chain for a few days at worst, this is not a nightmare scenario. Banks and traditional payment processors have random holds all the time, especially when dealing with anything international. The difference is, the funds in lightning are always yours because you have the key. There is no scenario where when properly used, you lose funds in lightning.
I can see that you don’t know how this works. That’s ok. It’s nonsense. No one needs to know about that.
Custodial wallets work just like checking accounts, without the regulation. Crypto victims like to say: Not your keys, not your coins. The custodian owes you the crypto that you have in your account/custodial wallet. You own a debt payable in crypto. If the custodian goes bankrupt and can’t pay the debts, you are screwed (as so many crypto victims have found out to their shock). The money in a normal checking account is covered by a mandatory deposit insurance scheme, so you don’t have to worry about that.
Because custodial accounts replicate checking accounts, they can be just as fast and efficient, in themselves. Having to pay the upkeep of the blockchain in the background means, that they can’t be as cheap as actual checking accounts. If a custodial wallet offers you better conditions than a checking account, they must be gambling with the crypto (that you loaned them) in some way, that a normal bank is prohibited from doing with customer funds.
For the sake of completeness: Exchanges in more regulated jurisdictions work like stock brokerages. They must hold the assets. In case of bankruptcy, they are special assets that belong to the customer and are not used to pay creditors in general.
At first I thought the article was inaccurate but It sounds like there has been a huge increase in US Bitcoin mining since 2020.
Some interesting information from their source article:
“The CBECI estimates that the global share of Bitcoin mining occurring in the United States rose from 3.4% in January 2020 to 37.8% in January 2022”
“the CBECI estimates put electricity supporting Bitcoin mining in 2023 at about 0.2% to 0.9% of global demand for electricity.”
Is it not a way in which some governments could collaborate to end this Bitcoin madness?
Genuinely question.
Like maybe some big countries could agree to collaborate and join resources to make a 51% attack and bring Bitcoin price to 0 so people stop wasting resources on it.
2% of enery usage for something that do not add any value to society is INSANE.
Some have tried, they have all failed. Bitcoin is international. A 51% attack is so implausibly expensive that nobody really has the resources to pull it off. Even if you had enough money and energy to burn, there is the small problem of acquiring enough of the specialized hardware to do it (ASIC miners), and potentially the specs and fab to make that hardware. People will see it coming a mile away. Don’t want to use ASICs? Enjoy at least a 100x increase in energy and equipment costs. And it gets more expensive every year. If you had that much money to put into destroying Bitcoin, it would be much better spent on an ad campaign telling people Bitcoin was bad than doing a 51% attack.
A 51% attack doesn’t prove Bitcoin is broken, it proves the protocol is working exactly as expected. A 51% attack causes a temporary fork. This happens all the time organically when two miners find the next block at the same time, it’s a natural part of the protocol. That’s why for really large or important transactions on main chain, you wait a few blocks before considering them fully secured.
Bitcoin’s value to society is the ability to easily transfer money from point A to B and having a clear fiscal policy it has kept to for 15 years, 365 days a year, 24/7 without a single hour of downtime, a bank holiday, or getting hacked. There’s a reason big money like hedge funds and private banking are investing in it: it’s actually useful and has massive potential. The market cap of Bitcoin is 850 BILLION USD, that’s bigger than the GDP of Sweden or Israel or Vietnam. People use it to move over a trillion dollars of value a year. You can debate how much of that movement is trading & speculation vs use as a currency, but it’s a trillion nonetheless. I personally pay for things regularly with Bitcoin, you’d be surprised how many places you can spend it when you start looking. And it’s available to anybody with a cellphone and halfway reliable internet access, including the billions of people who are “unbanked” and lack access to stable banking infrastructure.
Transactions on Bitcoin lightning occur in under a second and cost pennies in fees. That’s to send it across the room or across the globe. Remittance services and bank wires use just as much energy and cost 10x-1000x as much. And they waste not just energy but human capital as well, we no longer need humans manually sending bank wires like it’s 1910. You just don’t see headlines about the energy impact of bank wires or western union because it’s not novel, we just accept it as a cost of our financial system.
That’s not even getting into the secondary costs to the environment of running a society on an economy based on an inflationary currency which requires that currency be rapidly spent because it’s getting constantly devalued. That’s a great strategy to rapidly industrialize the world, but it’s not a great strategy on a globe with limited resources. Tell me, if you knew your dollar would be worth 10% more next year, would you be more hesitant to spend it? Might you consume less if you knew saving money in your bank account would actually cause it’s value to stay the same or increase over time? Might you focus your spending more on quality products that will last instead of just buying the cheapest thing because if it breaks, you can just buy a new one? This isn’t just on a personal level, this same kind of calculus is used by big investment firms to build everything that won’t last. Buildings, stadiums, entire cities, financed with money that is constantly losing value. Bitcoin’s value relative to goods and services will fluctuate like any currency does, but the supply of the currency does not increase. There are 21 million which will ever be minted. Your 0.1BTC will always be 0.1BTC and will always represent 0.1/128M% of the total supply. If the Bitcoin economy grows, you share in that growth and the value it produces instead of seeing the difference printed away and given to whoever controls the money supply and whoever they want to give it to.
Skip ad. Bitcoin is pumped through ridiculous leverage and printing of “stable” coins like tether. The scam hasn’t unraveled yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.
Do you know that Tether and Bitcoin are different things? Because it seems like you don’t.
Do you know that tether is printed and used to buy bitcoin? Because it seems like you don’t.
Stablecoins are a house of cards built around stably relating to another house of cards which is the entire inflationary fiat system. Every single asset and currency is speculated on via the open market. Bitcoin is no exception. If it is overvalued or undervalued, that creates market opportunities for people to exploit the difference. The market has decided it’s worth a certain amount today, it will be another amount tomorrow. Not unique to Bitcoin. Every year people have said Bitcoin was “overvalued” and powered purely by hype, on average, the market has decided they were wrong the following year.
Any honestly-run stablecoin inherently has to collateralize their coin with something. They can buy BTC (and do), they can buy USD (and do), they can buy wheat futures (but I’m not sure they do). Ultimately, a diverse portfolio would probably be wisest. Yet you don’t see anybody complaining that “USD is being pumped by Tether/USDC”. Why? Because it’s not a problem.
If you destroy Bitcoin, another currency would take its place.
The economics of Bitcoin mining are a bit weird in that it impossible to make it more energy efficient.
The system auto adjusts the computational complexity of mining bitcoin so that it always costs a little less than one bitcoin to mine a bitcoin, and at scale the only variable expense is electricity so as the price of bitcoin goes up, so does the amount of money that must be spent on electricity.
Current 6.25 Bitcoin are mined every 10 minutes. So globally about $2 million must be spent on electricity every hour.
In a little over 2 months the block reward cuts in half to only 3.125 bitcoin every 10 minutes. That will have the side effect of reducing the money spent on electricity for mining bitcoin so long as the price of bitcoin remains the same.
“The System” is not really that intelligent. The statement that “It will always cost a little less than one Bitcoin to mine a Bitcoin” is only correct because the incentives in the system steer everyone toward that. There’s no direct link between the two. Bitcoin Miners are intently aware of how much energy they consume, and if the price of Bitcoin dips below what they are paying for electricity, they likely will shut down their rigs, because no one wants to mine at a loss.
The real issue with Bitcoin is that the algorithm used to find more Bitcoins is kind of basic in terms of its difficulty mechanism. It was the first one ever used for cryptocurrency. It was originally envisioned that owners could mine more bitcoin with spare cycles on their CPU, but since it was first designed, people have come up with custom mining chips that can mine faster and much more power efficiently. But paradoxically, this has made things worse, because the bitcoin mining difficulty simply scaled up to account for all that. So now the only way to mine Bitcoin is to have this custom hardware – it’s too hard to do any other way – and you need so much of it that you are just as power hungry as before.
There are other algorithms that don’t have these same problems. They have been designed to use other computing resources (like gobs of memory) that are much harder to concentrate on custom chips, making it much more expensive (monetarily and spatially as well as computationally) to simply spam more of them. Ethereum uses a totally different model now that doesn’t rely directly on power consumption at all.
OG Bitcoiners seem to think that the massive power consumption is a net benefit, because it is spent in making the overall network more secure, and less likely to be attacked. So they will never try to change their block algorithm, even though other projects are just as secure with less power consumed. And if that opinion holds, the only way to eliminate this source of power consumption would be to crash the price, and cause the Bitcoin miners to have to mine at a huge loss to continue.
I really have trouble understanding this argument. Joining a mining pool secures nothing.
the power reqs keep the plebes out.
I remain convinced that crypto is just tech bros trying to redo the early days of the stock market so they end up rich instead
not a bad assessment.
The whole point of mining is to arrange transactions into blocks, and then generate a cryptographic hash of the block that meets some difficulty criteria. It costs some small amount of computing to do that. But an astonishingly large number of hashes won’t meet that difficulty criteria, which is why miners have to try a gazillion times to find one that works.
However, once a block has a valid hash, it is added to the chain. Then, the hash of that valid block must be used in the next block, which will be equally hard to find.
By “security”, what is really meant is “How can I be sure that a transaction can’t be undone once it is committed”? And it’s because all these blocks are stacked on top of each other, and cryptographically related. Once a transaction appears in a block, and a few blocks get mined on top of it, it becomes prohibitively difficult to un-do it, because someone would have to put in the computing power to re-authenticate a string of blocks, all while the rest of the network is adding blocks to the valid chain at a faster rate.
The security of this whole arrangement has so far been working good as well.
In order for someone to try and perform a 51% attack, they’ll need to either compromise a large swathe of existing miners (e.g if the government seized control) or create/acquire hardware totaling more than 100% of the existing network today plus growth while you attempt to build more than 100% and then maintain growth over the rest of the network.
As the network grows that becomes exceedingly more difficult to perform.
I have really high hopes for something like proof of
workstake, but it’s not without it’s own problems either, and with Ethereum, it’s the first massive scale test, so it’s not as battle tested as proof of work yet, although it’s been used in smaller projects so there has been some testing. With more money on the line though, comes more will to try and break it, or use an exploit you may have held back beforehand.One interesting difference with POW/POS is that if a miner/entity does somehow perform an attack, they keep the hardware and can continue to try. With POS, they should get slashed in which case the money is gone. But with POW you have the barrier of actually acquiring the correct amount of hardware, meanwhile in POS, you just need the money so there’s no manufacturing/lead time and will be easier to achieve by state actors.
My main issue with Bitcoin isn’t even the POW vs POS angle, it’s the fact that the core devs see no problem with their current POW algorithm, which is not designed to put any bounds at all on energy consumption. But I also think they should have increased the block size, and you can see where that discussion went.
I just realized I wrote the above, but if it wasn’t clear, I meant proof of stake.
Fuck the core devs is really all i have to add to that without going into it…
Luckily things like Ethereum and others were born due to them.
I think what needs to be considered here is what we consider a waste of electricity. Efficiency calculations are dependent on waste, So I personally think electric cars are a waste of resources, they consume electricity to run and consume non renewable resources to produce just to move a maximum of 1-5* people per journey. Whereas an electric which still uses this resources can move over 10x that amount per journey, and trains over 30x that amount per journey.
So to me that’s energy inefficiency at the consumer point.
Now let’s look at energy generation and transfer. At the moment, alot of energy production is a for profit business, Company A builds a solar farm, Company B builds a Coal power plant and Company C (This would be overseen by the government, not a private company) builds a nuclear reactor. All 3 of these companies produce various amounts of electricity with different efficiencies, but all must be sold at the same price. It might only cost £0.01/KwH on the solar farm to produce, but must be sold for £0.33/KwH, the coal would be £0.27/KwH and nuclear would be £0.45/KwH.
You have 3 generation methods, each with strengths and weaknesses all being forced to sell for the same price. Normally in a capitalist system you see “Competition” (not really) on the market. Company A would say “We’re cheap, but can only guarantee 97% uptime due XYZ issues”, most homes would be fine with me this. Company B + C “We’re not as cheap but we can offer 99.9% uptime” This looks great for companies needing that security in uptime.
I’ve gone on a tangent and can’t be bothered finishing this post maybe someone else will.
Please don’t buy Bitcoin if you want the Earth to last.
I avoid it to not feel like a dumbass.
Saving the energy is just a bonus…
Earth is fucked; I need money.
Buy Bitcoin.
sorts by controversial 🍿
Does your client allow sorting by controversial/score/down votes? I haven’t seen that option, which on one hand I’m happy for (one of my self-destructive reddit habits) but is also sometimes is so satisfying.
I’m just using the lemmy.ml web interface, which does.
Fair enough - thanks