Hacker News Reader

Comment by nprateem | Hacker News Reader

POW crypto should be globally banned on ecological grounds.

People say this all the time, but why don't they say that about videogames? or actual mining? I also think access to and freedom to use electricity as you wish is really underrated as a freedom. Maybe consider that if you start this precedent people will end up policing your energy use too

Because even video games have more worth than crypto?

Ask someone in Turkey or Venezuela, who's had their currency devalue 50%+ overnight, which one is more important.

I don't think anybody really has an issue with a stable coin that people use to send money back and forth or keep some savings, but most of crypto isn't that. It's full of disgusting pyramid schemes that completely overshadow the few legitimate uses.

And replacing unstable fiat money with even less stable, totally speculatory crypto like Bitcoin? Seems like it's better just to buy some USD and stash it somewhere. Hell, even buying and reselling Steam keys is probably less volatile.

Are you claiming that video games waste more electricity than crypto mining PoW? Do you have evidence to support that? It's a pretty strong claim, since most of the power being used to play a video game is doing something (rasterizing images/synthesizing audio/simulating physics in order to provide the game experience) while most of the power used to do PoW mining is Wasted On Purpose.

Why do games have to use so much electricity? They should be fine with a few kb of storage and maybe some minimal networking. Back in the day games were completely fine and playable in tiny cartridges. Games should be regulated to not consume a certain amount of network and processing power.

On the other hand, without the PoW mechanism of Bitcoin, it's impossible to have the properties that bitcoin has - global decentralised money and payment network. If you believe otherwise, make one! Very quickly no one will be willing to pay for Bitcoin, and all those "wasted electricity" will suddenly become available again.

Why do I need to? Chia and Ethereum already exist.

This is a complete double standard you're applying (which was kind of my point, policing electricity leads to everyone imposing their own private values on others). You could say that 100% of the power spent on videogames is wasted since they're a luxury/distraction/unnecessary. You could also say that none of the power is wasted on bitcoin since it's providing security for the network.

To be clear, I'm not saying either of these is "correct". My entire point here is that everyone talking about "waste" is just imposing their own private value system on everyone else and I've yet to see a single person apply some kind of consistent standard for what should and shouldn't be banned

> People say this all the time, but why don't they say that about videogames? or actual mining?

The difference is that, for videogames or mining physical rocks, the power use is an undesired side effect, so the incentive is to minimize it, while for POW cryptocurrencies, the power use is an essential component of the mechanism they use to prevent double spending, and the incentive is to use as much as possible.

Does the freedom to use electricity as you wish have any value to you personally?

Probably so they aren't deflected.

POW could be replaced by the more efficient POS, but network effects make that highly unlikely without government intervention.

Then so should GPU powered generative AI. Just kidding.

Just because you do not derive utility from something does not mean it a waste and should be banned.

Who derives utility from the PoW component of PoW crypto? Is the work doing something useful to you? Is the utility "I feel good about using electricity to do nothing"?

yes it's doing something useful - securing the network and ensuring consensus

It's already been proven that you can secure a network without wasting massive amounts of electricity

has it though?

I'm not sure which of the many consensus protocols you may have in mind, but proof of stake is the most popular alternative.

A 51% attack for PoW requires that someone can afford to power 51% of the network. That's expensive. Once the attack is detected, the community can fork away from the moment of the attack.

A 51% attack for PoS requires that someone owns 51% of the tokens. At that point, the attack costs nothing. If the attack is detected and the community forks, the attacker still has enough tokens to attack again on the new network - at no cost.

All of this stuff is brand new. Saying that any of it is "proven" is pretty bold.

This is a tired complaint built on a faulty analysis of Bitcoin's power usage. There are a lot of things that use more power than the Bitcoin network, such as all of the idle electronics in the USA. Or christmas lights during the season. In the case of Bitcoin, the power used to mine is often power that would otherwise be wasted. Excess power from hydroelectric damns as well as gas being burned off in the oilfield are both used to mine Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't robbing anyone of power they need for anything else because the moment the cost of power goes up, Bitcoin mining leaves town. Because Bitcoin creates a market for power and can be mined anywhere with power and Internet, it creates unique opportunities to improve our power grid. We can now build power stations in areas where there are not yet enough residential customers to fund it by using the excess power for Bitcoin mining. Net result is that Bitcoin is a value add for our power infrastructure and the negative impact of Bitcoin mining is grossly exaggerated. The current banking system has a significantly worse impact on the environment.

Deluded

You wouldn't say that if bitcoin used no more power than it did in its first 4 years, before all the speculative use that drove up prices and energy use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com