News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by shawnz on Friday April 30, 2021 @04:35PM (#26998942)
The efficiency of Visa isn't comparable because it solves a completely different problem than Bitcoin.

And yes, in most cases we can pay each other just fine without Bitcoin. That doesn't negate its specific usefulness.

It's already well documented that you don't see the trustlessness and decentralization to be a value for you personally. If that's the case then simply don't buy any. Those who do get value from those properties will use it, as is the case now.

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by arcticbull on Friday April 30, 2021 @05:32PM (#26999639)
Sorry its no longer that simple. It's wasting as much power as all of Switzerland and all of Austria combined. 52MT of CO2 emitted annually. 10kT of e-waste. And growing like grey goo. [1] Dormant coal facilities are now being re-activated to hash noise as fast as they can. [2]

This is literally everyone's problem now and we should all do everything we can, tell everyone we can, to shut this down before it's too late.

Your game of pass-the-spreadsheet-cell is now actively threatening the lives of people on the planet at probably the most critical time in human history re: global warming. I have general distaste for the MLM nature of most coins in this frothy climate - but those $SAFEMOON and $CUMMIES folks are just going to lose money, not ruin Earth. I mostly do everything I can to end Bitcoin by raising awareness. You should too.

I'd be just as vocal if your coin was based on proof-of-killing-elephants or proof-of-having-a-tire-fire-on-your-lawn.

[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

[2] https://www.newsbtc.com/news/bitcoin/australian-power-compan...

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by ziml77 on Friday April 30, 2021 @06:09PM (#27000059)
A point that I always try bring up is that adding more mining capacity shifts the distribution of coins but it doesn't change the rate of mining at all.

Ideally you'd have the compute power be tiny amounts divided up over a large number of people. But that would require everyone participating to be principled and using Bitcoin because of its decentralized nature instead of as a way to make money. Human nature would never let that happen.

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by arcticbull on Friday April 30, 2021 @06:24PM (#27000239)
Indeed, because proof of waste will centralize around the place where the wasted resources are the cheapest.
Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by billytetrud on Saturday May 01, 2021 @12:50PM (#27007747)
Bitcoin isn't a country. It's ridiculous to compare bitcoin's energy usage to countries because it's international. Video gaming uses more energy than bitcoin mining, so stop parroting this BS false narrative that bitcoin is so wasteful.
Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by arcticbull on Saturday May 01, 2021 @07:36PM (#27010951)
> Bitcoin isn't a country. It's ridiculous to compare bitcoin's energy usage to countries because it's international. Video gaming uses more energy than bitcoin mining, so stop parroting this BS false narrative that bitcoin is so wasteful.

Your point about video games is pretty asinine because a meaningful portion of the 8 billion people on earth playing video games. We have virtually nobody using Bitcoin because its so incredibly hamstrung. [2]

Based on this data [3] playing video games for 4.4 hours a day for an entire year consumes 823kWh. A single bitcoin transaction requires 1127.77kWh. [1]. So you can either play 6 hours of video games on your 3090 in ultra 1440p144Hz - or move 250 bytes of data.

Bitcoin's 3TPS currently yields as much CO2 as burning 1 ton of coal per second and generates 10kT of non-recyclable e-waste, which also includes a bunch of gold that has to be mined to make the systems in the first place. [1]

All for 3TPS lol.

[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

[2] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-gaming-c...

[3] https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/global-gaming-c...

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by billytetrud on Sunday May 02, 2021 @12:50AM (#27012450)
> Your point about video games is pretty asinine

Well, I would have good points I could write. However, if you're just going to insult me, I'm not going to waste my time.

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by arcticbull on Sunday May 02, 2021 @04:32AM (#27013370)
Hm did I offend? If so my bad! Cheers and enjoy your evening. I do however suspect you have no good points to share and hence your exit from this debate. Your point may have been asinine (I do not plan to walk that back) but that says nothing of you, it wasn't a value judgement on the speaker.
Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by fock on Monday May 03, 2021 @03:59AM (#27022659)
thanks for switching discourse like this. I think the defining problem of politics (and by extension change) nowadays is that people don't call out antisocial behavior anymore. Nearly every society in the past did this one way or another in the non-autocratic parts (farmers villages, soviet,...). Nowadays we have a system run by psycho- and sociopaths (aka the McKinseyan PMC) and we can't get at them because wokeness-brigade tells us: poor things, don't hurt them...
Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by shawnz on Friday April 30, 2021 @05:56PM (#26999894)
As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable.
Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by arcticbull on Friday April 30, 2021 @06:19PM (#27000186)
> As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US.

Luckily Bitcoin mining is utterly centralized. In fact turning off a single mine in Xinjiang cut power consumption by 1/4-1/2.

> Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit?

No. Is idle device power in the US rising? Some data shows one of the biggest sources of idle power is halogen bulbs being left on which are being replaced with LEDs over time - unlike the exponential rise in BTC power consumption. Not to mention, it requires 400,000,000 people to each act. Killing Bitcoin requires a few people to act. Much easier. And of course, both should be done.

> Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable.

Yes, much more when we choose intentionally 400,000X less efficient technologies because of idealism or because they're "neat." Living in a society requires we make compromises to ensure our shared survival. Our consumption is the sum of our choices. Time to start making some better ones.

This whataboutism and nihilism is pretty much a guarantee of inaction on all fronts. Step up and do the right thing!

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by shawnz on Friday April 30, 2021 @06:57PM (#27000611)
I never said anything about which technology was easier to kill. The question is which technology can be made more efficient while retaining its utility. The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful? I already know you believe it's not useful, but it's not up to a single individual to decide that.

> when we choose intentionally 400,000X less efficient technologies because of idealism or because they're "neat."

Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficiency to technologies like Visa which solve a totally different problem. So this is a useless and misleading metric aside from the obvious strawman that cryptocurrencies are only useful because they are "neat".

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by arcticbull on Friday April 30, 2021 @07:10PM (#27000749)
> The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful?

Not talking about Bitcoin, just PoW. The implication is clear: it uses a ton of energy and achieves almost nothing with it relative to competitive technologies.

> Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficiency to technologies like Visa which solve a totally different problem.

Yes there is, it's by dividing into kWh per transaction. You can't pretend this away because you don't like the landslide loss.

[edit] I'm sure you well know those counterarguments are meaningless because they fly in the face of math. Look this is typical of crypto folks, who know well they're melting the ice caps to enrich themselves. It's shameful, and you should feel bad for participating in this. The comparison in the domain is against, for instance proof of stake coins.

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by shawnz on Friday April 30, 2021 @07:19PM (#27000819)
I am sure you know well the counterarguments to measuring by kWh per transaction.

- The power consumption of Bitcoin has almost nothing to do with the transaction rate limit. Increasing it would have basically no impact on the power consumption. So it doesn't make sense to look at the energy usage on a per transaction basis.

- It's debatable whether there is actually a need to increase the transaction rate limit yet, whereas it's obviously necessary for Visa to process a high transaction rate right now and so it makes sense that Visa would have optimized for that already. I think even the "small blockers", who prefer the current low rate, can agree that the rate will need to be increased eventually.

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by saalweachter on Friday April 30, 2021 @10:21PM (#27002340)
Incidentally the last time [well, more like the 215th time ago, because this thing comes up like 10 times a day] this came up, I came up with a figure for US junk mail's CO2 footprint that was comparable to Bitcoin [US junk mail volume is something in the 6 million ton range, and the figures I got for paper were 3-10 pounds of CO2 / pound of paper].

I'm not bringing this up to dispute anything you just said, more that if you're looking to crusade against industries that generate a huge amount of waste to benefit a relative few, I think there's a strong argument for also killing junk mail along with PoW cryptocurrencies.

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by billytetrud on Saturday May 01, 2021 @12:56PM (#27007787)
Bitcoin solves a problem that has corrupted governments for millennia. Control over the supply of money gives central bankers the ability to steal money from the people and funnel it into paying off politicians and doing other country destroying bs. Once you understand how bitcoin will eliminate a major source of corruption in our world you'll finally understand it's value
Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by arcticbull on Saturday May 01, 2021 @07:35PM (#27010947)
It does not. It only appears to on its face. Blockchain can only extend its trustless, decentralized and permissionless guarantees to the data on chain. These guarantees break down at the boundary between the blockchain and the real world. All the blockchain said is 1BTC=1BTC and which coins are associated with which keys. It doesn't say how much value each coin represents. Tether does that.

> Control over the supply of money gives central bankers the ability to steal money from the people and funnel it into paying off politicians and doing other country destroying bs.

Central banks don't print money and funnel it off to politicians lol. They control the money supply by deciding how much credit should be extended and at what interest rates and from time to time provide stability through buffering via purchase and sale of treasuries.

> Once you understand how bitcoin will eliminate a major source of corruption in our world you'll finally understand it's value.

It has created a whole slew of new kinds of corruption and crime, and all the existing corruption and crime remain. It's been a net add of corruption and crime.

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by billytetrud on Sunday May 02, 2021 @12:48AM (#27012436)
> It doesn't say how much value each coin represents. Tether does that.

No. The market does that. I'm not sure why you think this is different than how the value of, say, a dollar represents.

> Central banks don't print money and funnel it off to politicians lol.

You misunderstand. Its not that direct. Central banks print money used to fund things like government loans (ie bonds), among other things. Member banks buy the government bonds and sells them at a profit to the central bank. The owners of those member banks in turn pocket that money and use some of it to fund the legalized corruption known as lobbying. This is not the only funnel that looks like this that comes out of the financial industry. There's a reason that Goldman Sachs "alums" trawl DC like cockroches.

So.. very much not lol. Not lol at all.

> They control the money supply by deciding how much credit should be extended and at what interest rate

I think you've missed the last 15 years where they started buying whatever they want in "open market operations". Where were you in 2008... or like the last year and a half?

>It has created a whole slew of new kinds of corruption and crime

You're misinformed. Show me one way that bitcoin has lead to new kinds of corruption. I would be very surprised if you could name a single thing and have some credible information about it.

Re:'Minting' electronic cash (1999) by arcticbull on Sunday May 02, 2021 @04:33AM (#27013380)
> No. The market does that. I'm not sure why you think this is different than how the value of, say, a dollar represents.

Well most markets aren’t made up of 95% fictional trades, according to an ETF that attempted to list two years ago.

> You misunderstand. Its not that direct. Central banks print money used to fund things like government loans (ie bonds), among other things.

You misunderstand. Central banks don’t print money, they set reserve rates, interest rates and they occasionally purchase and sell bonds. Nothing more.

> You're misinformed. Show me one way that bitcoin has lead to new kinds of corruption. I would be very surprised if you could name a single thing and have some credible information about it.

Ransomware and tether (unless you count the liberty reserve and even that was nowhere close).