SpaceX launching an Ethereum node to the ISS | Hacker News Reader

SpaceX launching an Ethereum node to the ISS

sciencetimes.com

It seems they found a way to make the blockchain even more carbon intensive by burning up rocket fuel as well.

It only starts out inefficient. Eventually you have enough of them to capture most of the energy of the star.

Yeah, we'll end up building a Dyson sphere just to secure a goddamn "financial network".

Been worried about this for a while (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21280454 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24309932).

EDIT: Merged pull request: quotes around "financial network" (usrusr)

EDIT 2: _Microft wins this day. I'm going to start using Nakamoto scale from now on. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27368015

Basically doing the same as in Accelerando https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando

Heh, knowing humanity this is definitely the least unlikely scenario for a Dyson sphere to come into existence.

Pull request: quotes around "financial network"

I've seen your comments throughout the years and it's been one of the sparks for me to learn more about Bitcoin's power consumption, it is truly bizarre how easily shoved aside the argument about the climate impact of PoW cryptocurrencies is by their proponents. Seems that some on the Bitcoin train didn't realise that the concept and technology have been coopted by miners, etc. since the rift about increasing block size or not, the miners and others with high stakes in maintaining the status quo have won. They won't ever allow their investments to become worthless (or at least non-profitable) and now all the other smaller agents have to fight a war against that to ever have a chance to change the massive ecological impact of Bitcoin.

Thanks for shaping a path to educate myself on this issue, I recognised the Dyson sphere analogy pretty quickly, haha.

There's a really strong movement inside the crypto community to move away from any sort of technology that requires a Proof of Work system like Bitcoin. Bitcoin is like the racist grandfather that started the family: nobody _actually_ likes it except the people trying to get close to get rich off of it someday. There are lots of blockchains that are very promising that are excellent alternatives that are gaining major traction. Even Ethereum itself recognizes that Proof of Work is terrible and is restructuring how the blockchain itself operates to correct it.

But something nobody ever even questions is: How much power does Wall Street consume? Or every bank, and every bank chain in the world? It's so easy to point the finger directly at coin mining as "that's bad" because people used to try to do it at home and it became increasingly impossible to do because of the power consumption, but nobody sees the power consumption by the huge amount of computational automation that goes into stock trading.

Ethereum is facing that very scenario of miners versus environment and has told the miners: too bad, your way will die, prepare for it. I don't know if Bitcoin will do that or follow suit, but I would argue that Ethereum is the worst of the two since it still uses GPUs for mining rather than customized ASIC processors (which only have one purpose: to calculate, in hardware, a SHA256 hash using parallel micro-cores that can run hundreds simultaneously per chip) like Bitcoin does.

I'm looking forward to the day when a smart, environmentally-friendly blockchain like EOS/WAX, Stellar, Solana, and the likes take over and slowly "wrap" BTC into them, burning them on one chain to activate their value on another.

Here I was hoping we'd spend it on virtual environments where we could just set account balances to whatever we want

According to my definition, that's a Nakamoto Type II civilization, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26435464

(Spoiler: it's just the Kardashev scale with the additional condition that all available energy has to be burned on crypto mining)

haha

Etherium is the one doing away with mining though. Most people think it will replace bitcoin (for that and other reasons.)

> Most people think it (Etherium) will replace bitcoin

Sorry for going full meta and I hope this doesn't come across as mean but, coin speculation is something I hope to see less on HN. There's enough of this on Twitter and everywhere else.

> replace bitcoin

Replace Bitcoin as a speculative asset? Because I don't really see Bitcoin as anything else. Just to clarify why, according to Coinmarketcap, trade volume for june 1st was about $35B. The transaction volume on the actual Blockchain was about $5B, according to Blockchain explorer.

So yesterday, 85% of Bitcoin transactions wasn't even on the blockchain. They were trades within markets that use the same old technology that banks do. They (often) have the same KYC that banks do. And have no direct connection to the blockchain. I doubt most people who 'own crypto' actually own any crypto and they just have the right to crypto that is stored in the wallets of their markets.

I realize this rant went a bit off topic, but I really wonder what 'replace bitcoin' means in this context.

Edit: I realized that coinmarketcap and blockhain explorer numbers are probably cumulative, so it'd be more like 87,5% of transactions off blockchain. Doesn't really change anything about my point, just thought it was worth an edit.

Yeah, I think people forget what is it that makes cryptocurrencies popular. It's not about all the ideals about decentralization, innovation, working around dictatorships and Big Banks, etc. Few people understand any of this, and even less people care.

Cryptocurrencies are popular first and foremost because they streamlined the ability to run financial scams, which otherwise are much more difficult to pull off. Secondly, because they make it easier to gamble. Thirdly, because they make it easier to exchange illegal goods and services.

Well the entire country of El Salvador now believes it to be the best option they have as a currency of choice. So I guess your points might be valid for some very minority stake, but they're popular because you can trade them like stocks and even trade futures on them to make money. So sure, like all financial systems, it's being used for bad things. But cash is used far more often than anything else to trade money for bad things.

> So yesterday, 85% of Bitcoin transactions wasn't even on the blockchain.

stock trading also happens mostly outside of stock exchanges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_securities_depository

Yeah, but people that own stocks do not typically go on and on about how the stock market is a revolutionary technology that changes everything. Stocks are worth something no matter how they are traded.

Supposedly, it is the blockchain that makes bitcoin viable but if most transactions are off chain then what is the point?

A thought experiment: at what point does the blockchain cease to add value? What if 99% of transactions were off the blockchain? What if all transactions were off-chain?

At the moment it looks to my untrained eye like a few big exchanges do almost all of the trading internally without moving coins, keeping the expensive blockchain transactions for batched redemptions between exchanges. How is this different that what normal banks do with cash?

Thanks, this is exactly the point I was trying to make!

It is different mainly in that if you want to move around large amounts of money outside of the banking system you can do so without using briefcases/trucks full of physical cash.

Whether that movement is illegal or legal is probably at a similar ratio for both crypto and USD physical cash.

You can't turn this speculative asset back into currency without the banking system...so how can this possibly move money outside of the banking system?

Says who? All you need to find is someone who will give you cash for crypto. Sites like localbitcoins make this easy and safe.

It's funny that you call bitcoin a "speculative asset" even though fiat currencies are far more "speculative" than anything tangible. Bitcoins are tangible even if they're electronic. Your statement is like saying "this news source that reported this is speculative because it's on the internet, but the real news that's printed in a newspaper is what actually happened."

This is actually how Bitcoin is supposed to work if successful. Normal banks perform final settlement with Fedwire. That is actually what Bitcoin is competing against (except at an international scale).

It is confusing because stores keep wanting to accept Bitcoin as payment for small transaction but it is obviously horrible at that.

You should go read the newspapers about when the stock market first formed.

People raved about it for a decade...

This is a straw man argument. If Bitcoin is useful, it is for final settlement for larger institutions. Of course a proper rollup that works at scale is missing.

and ~improve~ transaction latency

Wonder when Elon will complete this pump & dump just like he did with bitcoin. He is either a fraudster or a moron, when he decided to embrace bitcoin and a month later decided it wasn't good for the environment... Anyone with access to the internet and a few minutes time can figure out the power consumption required to back a network which supports a miniscule amount of transactions. And that power usage will only grow as acceptance and price continues to rise.

I’d like to be a fly on the wall of the SEC when the subject of Elon comes up. At this point I’m pretty sure he’s deliberately trolling them.

I have the same feeling. Elon despises the SEC and he might have found a way to mess with them by playing with a mostly unregulated market.

Edit: Also, his name was used a lot by crypto scammers on Twitter and nothing was ever done about those. That might also have pissed him off even more.

I'm holding out hope that he's deliberately trying to destroy the cryptocurrency market.

Except 'messing with the SEC' is actually messing with innocent people who's protection is outside the remit of the SEC.

What else would you expect from a person, who was sued by SEC for fraud?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk#SEC_lawsuit

No regrets, when return is greater than penalty

"Musk has stated in interviews he does not regret the tweet that triggered the SEC investigation"

Why would he? It's made him and "the shareholders" a lot of money. The SEC is toothless if you're a billionaire.

I’m not sure Musk has seen the last penalty for that tweet. The SEC has been corresponding with Tesla about Musk’s noncompliance with the court-ordered legal review of his tweets.

Elon's agenda:

1. Bitcoin bad

2. Bitcoin not green enough

3. Miners buy SolarRoof and Tesla Batteries, else Tesla will use it's billions to manipulate markets

Isn't Tesla still holding most of the bitcoin it bought?

This has literally nothing to do with Elon. Did you even read the article? Somebody paid SpaceX to transport something from A to B, that all.

This has nothing to do with SpaceX or Elon. The Ethereum node was part of cargo contracted with NASA.

These kind of headlines are so terrible. This is like saying UPS launches new server because they delivered it. SpaceX is literally a transportation company. The title is nothing other then trying to clickbait of the popularity of SpaceX.

You'll have more fun with SpaceX if you think of it as a PR company whose only product is getting people excited about space again.

Isn't it inevitable for any company which is successful and innovative in its field (especially if the field is space flight related)? SpaceX really achieved a lot with Falcon 9, Dragon, Crew Dragon, pushing Starship even higher [1]. If you want some context, and a comparison of already 12 years ago decommissioned SpaceX Falcon 1 with current state of the art small-lift launch rockets of other companies, check out this excellent video [2].

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/the-us-military-is-s...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Sfw58jApo (by Everyday Astronaut)

I think their success and innovation is in getting people excited about space again. People not caring was space exploration's problem for like thirty years.

Space explorations problem was that it had little to be exited about, not the other way around.

yikes

Hey, it’s actually one of Elon’s goals and it looks like it’s working.

It's not just the headline, the article mentions a "SpaceX plane"...

Was this article even written / edited by a human. It has gems of writting like this:

> Nexus Incorporated will join SpaceX and SpaceChain in addition to SpaceX and SpaceChain.

Another mechanism to increase the speculation bubble. No value is created by this, only "cool tech" messaging.

Hey, they're taking it "to the moon."

Isn’t cool tech what the people, and even HN, want? I can’t find that blog post by pg or whoever complaining that no one does anything cool anymore.

It is. And I am even fan of Ethereum. But still, wasting space and energy on ISS for what can be done literally anywhere on Earth seems unreasonable. Why did organization(s) that run ISS agreed to that? What is the motive?

You could create a "green" block chain by launching a secure cryptographic enclave that broadcasts a randomness beacon into orbit. (Several of them really, with the same seed.) Make it something that can be picked up by cheap SDRs. Then your block mining lottery becomes whoever can guess the next beacon output, and by being in orbit everyone can hear the beacon and it becomes extraordinarily costly (and obvious) to tamper with.

Of course that would allow extraterrestrials to cheat on coin mining...

And how does that stop sybil attacks?

It's not different from no mining at all - whoever can flood the network faster wins (with signed blocks or output guesses)

There are cryptographic primitives that can be instantiated via a multiparty key signing ceremony when the satellites are commissioned and then the keys thrown away. After that, you'd have to grab a satellite and disassemble it in a clean room and use some kind of nanometer-scale logic probe to extract secret key information to Sybil attack anything.

Sybil attack has nothing to do with stealing keys. It's just sending guesses into the network as fast as you can, to maximize chance of your guess ending up as winner.

What are the bandwidth requirements for running a node? Would it piggyback on ISS' com links?

Is there any advantage to running a node in the ISS?

Siphoning scarce power from the ISS to pointless mining of course.

Most nodes don't mine.

To run a node you need low spec PC so the power consumption is probably around 60W.

You're confusing nodes with mining, you don't really need much more than a RasPi with a sufficiently large SSD to run a node.

Even if so, I still don't see the point of wasting the space and power, however small, on what has no use being in space.

And bandwidth.

You are confusing BTC and ETH... A fully validating BTC node can be run on a raspberry pi, a full ETH node requires much more equipment.

a) It's a PR stunt. Adding *in space* works a lot better than "SpaceX is running an Ethereum node" alone.

a.1) Particularly for the company "SpaceChain" that actually runs it, ridding piggy back PR on the name of SpaceX and the recent Tesla/Bitcoin craze.

b) Every time Elon Musk appears in a sentence together with crypto currencies, prices bounce around (exactly what you want in a currency, right). This can be used deliberately to make bank and in contrast to the stock market, there is no regulatory body stopping/punishing that.

c) Last time I checked, the ISS didn't have a diesel generator standing out back, so it will run on solar power only (which is of course offset by burning rocket fuel to get there in the first place, and probably by burning itself up when eventually returning home)

Space has different risk factors than places on earth, so this diversifies the risks of the ETH network by adding another dimension of geographic decentralization.

Why the ISS -> probably because it has a well-understood power, data & thermal framework that the company now doesn't have to build for themselves, nor do they now have to manage the orbit of their node.

Please describe scenario, when that 'another dimension of geographic decentralization' has any effect.

In this case it doesn't. If there is a catastrophic failure on earth so big that it wipes out all electrical systems and kills all computers the ISS won't survive for long without any resupplying. In that case you'll have an ETH node orbiting earth in a station full of dead people.

Such scenarios are mostly hypothetical, and would mostly include world-ending situations such as planetary impactors.

Do note that I'm not advocating for ETH-nodes in space, I'm just putting up reasons for sending [stuff] into space. If you had a very lucrative webshop, you could decide to do HA by sending some of your servers to space. It doesn't logistically or practically make any sense, but the reasons for doing so are not wrong per se.

What other compute is in space? Do we have a data centre in a can up there?

Thermal management would be a bit hard for that, so I'd guess no. Apart from that there's no real benefit to having that there. I would assume there is not that much computation requirement that has to happen in space that isn't cheaper and much easier to do on the ground with just sending the results to space.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/this-is-how-nasa-chooses-tech-...

> The station has around 100 laptops, as well as tablets and other devices, and aims to use each machine for around six years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com