Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyborgx7 | Hacker News Reader

>The crypto community should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin

It cannot be addressed. By definition. It's not like sadly there is a part of the Bitcoin algorithm that is very expensive computationally and therefore energetically and if we could only optimize that part the problem would go away. There is an intentionally hard part that is a part of the Bitcoin protocol to make the Proof-of-Work algorithm, that obviates the need for a central source of authority or trust, work.

Anybody who tells you that Bitcoin will overcome the exorbitant energy needs is ignorant or a scam artist.

View on HN

If the use of it is banned in just a few major economies (ie banned in the sense of blocking contact points with the regular economy in the conversion to traditional currency or purchase /sale of goods or services) then the value of BTC would tank, no?

BTC doesn’t need to overcome its energy needs, so long as people just stop wasting any energy. There is an infinity of things with massive wasteful energy use that no one does (such as sending rocks into space or boiling lakes for fun) simply because there is no financial gain.

If BTC is altogether banned probably. If just mining is banned then probably not.

Yeah, isn't it kinda on purpose ?

I always understand it as a way for anyone anywhere being able to join just with a computer and electricity, without having to beg any existing centralized entity for permission to exchange their "real" money for the crypto tokens.

And it seems to have been right, as exchanges are indeed where most fraud happens a what is actually targeted when a government does not like a cryptocurrency.

Still not sure how one is supposed to avoid this without handing over the given crypto network to a centralized entity that decides who gets what.

That is exactly correct. And proof of work solves a problem that was thought unsolvable. So no other solution is likely to appear soon. None yet. (Proof of stake just recreates the problem.)

What is the problem with PoS that you speak about?

https://endthefud.org/PoW

> https://endthefud.org/PoW

Hardly an unbiased source (has "The best links to articles debunking Bitcoin FUD " as the subtitle). I read through some of the links and they are all high on big words and philosophy.

We will know soon enough whether there's merit to any of these. Ethereum plans to move to PoS early this year so we'll have a real world data point.

> has "The best links to articles debunking Bitcoin FUD " as the subtitle

It does what it says in the tin, no more no less.

Yup. And as such that source is ineffective in convincing someone not already convinced.

Would moving to proof-of-stake help reduce energy (as used in newer Ethereum)? (less secure, but more energy efficient/faster)

Next step: one dude in a basement with an Excel sheet. Can also process 4 transactions per second (if typing fast), a bit less secure, but much more energy efficient. (Note: at BTC's cost of US$ 1.5 million per hour, we can also hire a few trustworthy people to stand behind the dude and make sure that there's no cheating, and still be more efficient.)

Ethereum's proof of stake currently has a quarter million validators, so it's arguably a bit more secure and decentralized than one dude with an Excel sheet.

What about Iota coin or just using GPG signatures?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com