CryptoArt WTF Ecological Cost Calculator | Hacker News Reader

CryptoArt WTF Ecological Cost Calculator

cryptoart.wtf

28 pointsSignez15 comments

This is inspired by & using emissions data from the calculator I helped build: https://carbon.fyi

Read our "learn" page for a brief introduction and a little more info. Let me know if you have questions. Unfortunately I'm about to head for the desert so I'll see if some colleagues are available to reply on my behalf :)

CryptoArt.wtf and carbon.fyi have both helped spark a huge influx of artists into an "eco-nft" discord which has been really fun to be a part of, so much great debate and discussion going on.

Enlighten me: why don't these NFT contracts get deployed on ETC instead of ETH?

Or AVAX or the other binary compatible blockchains?

If you followed their recent mainnet release, you would know it's still in its early phases and not exactly ready for widespread usage. Same story with most of the other smart contract platforms.

The parent point stands: it's possible to release that on other chains, for lower gas fees and ecological costs.

BTW as you follow the space, what do you think about the alternatives? (the "other smart contract platforms")

My personal take is that AVAX and DOT are the best positioned in term of compatibility and costs but I'd like to hear counter opinions!

> The parent point stands: it's possible to release that on other chains, for lower gas fees and ecological costs.

No because the whole point of a secure, permanent record is lost if it's on an experimental chain. We have great systems for casual bookkeeping already, no need for a blockchain.

> My personal take is that AVAX and DOT are the best positioned in term of compatibility and costs but I'd like to hear counter opinions!

Agree with those picks. But once again these are still speculative, equivalent to Bitcoin or Ethereum when they were just launched. We didn't know whether the networks could actually be secure, or if there were fundamental flaws that would render the whole entreprise pointless. Ava labs did the very important work of researching and developing an entirely new consensus protocol, but that comes with risks, and as far as I know there are still many that think their system is fundamentally flawed.

> But once again these are still speculative, equivalent to Bitcoin or Ethereum when they were just launched.

Yes, and they will compete with eachother and with ETH2.

My personal analysis is that ETH2 will be a failure (coordination problem, too many moving parts, etc), and that one of these 2 will replace ETH - but it's too early to guess which one, because as you said:

> that comes with risks, and as far as I know there are still many that think their system is fundamentally flawed.

It seems like you could say the same about the risks of Ethereum 2.0, which will fully launch after Avalanche.

FLOW is pretty much designed for this and used by NBA Top Shot.

Flow is centralized though so the point of using a blockchain is lost.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26357520

It's gonna sound snarky, but I don't think there is any crypto that is ready for "widespread usage" if by that we mean literally 100s of millions of users per day, doing multiple transactions each. ETH for example is sitting at around 1.2 million transactions per day nowadays, and Bitcoin half of that. Theoretically, ETH can only do around ~2.5M transactions a day. Not exactly ready for widespread usage either.

ETH 2.0 is theoretically capable of 100K transactions per second, but I'll believe it when I see it under real world load. That said, it's good to see ETH finally moving to PoS.

It is ready, the low throughput is organically priced in by the network, thus the valid usecases are also organically, and "correctly" constrained. On experimental chains you pay a fraction of the cost for transactions, but the risks are unclear and misunderstood.

> Theoretically, ETH can only do around ~2.5M transactions a day. Not exactly ready for widespread usage either.

This is besides the point. There are many scaling solutions - and technology improves with time.

Your point is equivalent to saying "yeah but you can't put full videos online or even distribute them in digital format" in 1996, or predicting youtube is doomed to fail (like most nerds did back then)

Even with the storage technology of 1996 (700 MB CD) with the help of new algorithms you can compress a full movie at NTSC resolution or better.

And today, youtube is one of the most popular websites if not #1 in most of the world.

You may say "hindsight 20/20", I will say instead "old geeks can't understand the market or the potential of new things" - like the iPod. Less space than a nomad! Lame! Young impressionable geeks parrot these words instead of thinking by themselves.

Meanwhile, those who can see beyond the present limitations understand how wrong this all is.

ETC has had several 51% attacks recently. Eth (for now) hasn't been anywhere near as vulnerable.

Why do they exist? I'd contend to make money not art (which, like most things, does not require a blockchain).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com