News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bertil on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:14AM (#31094769)
The largest and easiest argument against crypto is the environmental impact. It’s completely ignored in that piece.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by floss_silicate on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:40AM (#31094969)
But that’s just an argument against any technology that will increase electricity demand, such as EVs.

When the web was growing the electrical demands were similarly criticised:

“The current fuel-economy rating: about 1 pound of coal to create, package, store and move 2 megabytes of data. The digital age, it turns out, is very energy-intensive. The Internet may someday save us bricks, mortar and catalog paper, but it is burning up an awful lot of fossil fuel in the process.”

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/1999/0531/6311070a.html?sh=5db...

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bertil on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @07:00AM (#31095099)
No: EVs has less carbon footprint than ICE, usually several times less. Digital economy has a carbon footprint, but orders of magnitude less than the alternatives: paper for administration, casettes for music or plastic film for movies.

You need to compare solutions at scale, not just say that a process that serves billions of people is wasteful because it uses as much energy that a process that is serving dozens of people.

Finally, most of the internet is powered from warehouses that are purposely built in areas with carbon-neutral electricity. The operators are actively optimising their consumption and investing in carbon-neutral energy generation that match their needs.

Crypto avocates likes to say they _could_ do it with imaginary wealth, but that are very far from being able to afford it; if they could, it would break their business model. In the mean time, they are settled in the countries with the worst carbon footprint possible. They tried to hide it but you can’t really hide that amount of waste. They have distrupted the energy market of China, Kazakstan so much that thousands of people died in energy shortages. For now, all we have from those people is mountains of unrecycled electronic waste.

So, no, those two are not the same thing.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by floss_silicate on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @08:42AM (#31096010)
> Finally, most of the internet is powered from warehouses that are purposely built in areas with carbon-neutral electricity. The operators are actively optimising their consumption and investing in carbon-neutral energy generation that match their needs.

This is exactly the same case as with bitcoin miners.

Estimates I’ve seen put renewables as 40-66% of bitcoins energy mix, with this figure rising over time.

The incentive is towards cheaper renewable sources that would otherwise not be viable.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bena on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:40AM (#31096787)
The problem is that bitcoin is greedy.

Every 10 minutes, a new coin is minted. That coin is given to the person who solved the correct hash. The chances of being the correct hash is 1/n where n is the number of miners active.

So if I fire up a miner and I'm the only one, I get a coin every 10 minutes. Life is good. Now, if you want bitcoins as well, you can fire up your own miner. Now we'll both get a coin every 20 minutes. But I was making 6 coins an hour, now I'm making 3. My production is halved. That sucks. But. I can spin up another miner. Now I have 2 to your 1. I get a coin roughly every 15 minutes, you get a coin roughly every 30.

You see where this is going, right? More miners, more coins. And the only way to get value out of these coins is to sell each coin for more than electricity used for all of your miners.

So you're incentivized to not only use every available unit of electricity to mine, you are also incentivized to sell at exorbitant prices. Bitcoin will not switch us over to renewables. It will also use renewables if and when they become available. Bitcoin has also caused long dormant fossil fuel generators to come online again.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bertil on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:41AM (#31096796)
> This is exactly the same case as with bitcoin miners.

No: both types of organisation are looking at areas with cheap electricity and free cooling, but large internet companies are looking at area with stable polical regime and low carbon footprint. Bitcoin miners _could_ value that; they certainly loudly claim that they do. In reality, they don’t. They set-up shops in countries with cheap coal like China and Kazakstan. It sounds like areas known for their corrupt officials and no rules around dumping electronic waste have some appeal.

They don’t go where electricity is carbon neutral. You know how I know that? Because I live near a lot of hydro power, Arctic cold, where all the big players have their European data centers——and there’s no crypto operation here.

Bitcoin advocates are delusional and loves confusing their claims (like they could operate a trust-less financial network) with reality. But reality is still easy to see: crypto a collection of wasteful, polluting, short-term scams.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by jack_pp on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:21AM (#31094822)
It's not that easy. Renewable power plants could be setup in areas where it makes no sense due to the logistics of transporting that energy to normal society and that plant could be 100% used to mine crypto which in a way makes crypto a "wireless energy transport technology".

Complaining that crypto uses a lot of power is like complaining India is trying to burn fossil fuels which will harm the planet. India wants to boost its economy the same way the west has done. Crypto activists want a democratised / uncontrollable financial system and so far mining and burning energy is the only way we know how to achieve it.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bertil on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:39AM (#31094967)
I strongly disagree with the points that you make. There are many ways to implement fair financial systems. Crypto activists chose to ignore them, refused to understand the sources of failures and just attact principles.

Instead, crypto advocates brandish an apparent technological solution that is at amost a very leaky abstraction. I can’t even stop screaming at how offensive is “wireless energy transport technology”. In doing so, you ignore that the scales in play are absurd: securing dozens of transactions should not have a larger environmental footprint than taking a billion people out of poverty. That you think this is even an argument is horrifying.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by jack_pp on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @07:39AM (#31095425)
What's offensive about it? Today energy generation of any kind has to have a way to transport that energy to a consumer. Bitcoin is in a privileged position of being able to use energy to create value locally to the energy producer. You might argue a datacenter could do the same thing but a datacenter requires a lot of staff and infrastructure while a mining operation doesn't. There's also the problem of a high speed high bandwidth internet connection.

So what is your solution to this? There are ways to generate energy purely from ocean waves, this is being used near shore for the reasons stated above (you must transport the produced energy to shore) but we could install these way further and just rely on a sattelite connection for internet.

How else would you utilize these yet untapped potential energy producing areas? Handwaving and using strong negative words aren't an argument.

----------

> There are many ways to implement fair financial systems

Depends on what you mean by fair but please do list those other more efficient ways

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by oauea on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @08:26AM (#31095851)
How does one turn crypto back into energy?
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by jack_pp on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @08:57AM (#31096193)
You sell it for dollars and buy energy with it
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by danaris on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:19AM (#31096467)
Yeah, that's not creating energy.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by jack_pp on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:30AM (#31096653)
Is buying solar panels and using them creating energy? If so you could do the same thing with your mining proceeds.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by danaris on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:42AM (#31096818)
But that's not what anyone's doing, or what anyone's going to do, with cryptocurrency.

Even if we assume (which is definitely not a safe assumption) that burning all that oil in the first place to mine the coins produces less carbon than the overall reduction caused by the increase in demand for solar panels and subsequent increase in their production and deployment (because just buying solar panels that were already being produced and going to be deployed by someone does not reduce the overall carbon load of the planet)...

That requires the miners to sink all their profits into buying solar panels, rather than, y'know, making money for themselves, which is the reason they're mining cryptocurrency in the first place.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by jack_pp on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @10:29AM (#31097481)
I never stated that miners are doing this, only that crypto mining could enable this new opportunity that never existed before it.

I did not check this but Michael Saylor claims that over 40% of mining is done using renewable energy. Considering solar power by itself is a good investment last time I checked ( around 13% ROI depending on your local energy price) then that number will probably increase as it just makes business sense to do it.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by danaris on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @01:22PM (#31100146)
"Cryptocurrency miners could, in theory, buy massive amounts of solar panels with the money they make by mining" is not in any meaningful way a refutation of the criticism that cryptocurrency actually, right now, in the real world, uses an absurd amount of energy and contributes significantly to the greenhouse gases warming our planet.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bena on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @05:13PM (#31103082)
By that logic, anything that makes money makes energy. Because money is fungible. I could use money from any source to buy solar panels and use them to create energy.

I could use money I earned from selling power generated by a coal plant to buy solar panels. That doesn't make the coal plant produce twice the energy.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bena on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:28AM (#31096607)
How do you get the energy out of crypto?
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by getaloadofthis0 on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @07:00AM (#31095096)
Your satire is worthy of Gulliver's Travels !
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by ea550ff70a on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @02:24PM (#31100980)
Environmental impact is only an issue if the energy source is dirty (which is becoming less of an issue as cost for renewables goes down and green energy mix in the grid increases) and or if you see no value in it. I agree with the former but at the same time I think the issue is not crypto in specific but ANYTHING whose energy source is dirty. The latter is obvi subjective and at the end of the day irrelevant as, like it or not, there are plenty of people that see value in it (2 trillion total market cap in cryptos right now).
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bertil on Thursday April 21, 2022 @05:19AM (#31107397)
You are confusing speculative investment and adoption.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by ea550ff70a on Thursday April 21, 2022 @12:38PM (#31111710)
Well of course there is plenty of speculative investment going on in this field (also not unique to cryptos, just look at what's has been going on with tech stocks and the Nasdaq), there is no doubt about that. But at the same time all adoption metrics have been increasing like crazy. Two things can be true at once here. There are plenty of people gambling (no bueno) and there is also plenty of other people using the tech/network/etc with other intentions as well. You have governments (at regional and country level) adopting the tech (like it or not), you have people in South America using it inflation hedging (yes it works for this when you country's currency devalues like crazy on a weekly basis) and for remittances, etc. The speculation part fuels the volatility, but it is also obvious that it has proven to withstand many bubbles while at the same time increasing its reach an adoption as this (like it or not) fills a need. A need for an alternative that while not the most efficient, is inclusive, fair, and open by design.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by brianolson on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:33AM (#31094911)
There are new blockchains based on technology a million times more efficient than Bitcoin. Ethereum is trying to upgrade. Bitcoin is terrible, but this is fixable by using things other than bitcoin.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bertil on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:47AM (#31095014)
> a million times more efficient than Bitcoin

That is still a million times less efficient than existing solution and still horrifyingly wasteful. Blockchain principle is that if you have as many people as possible waste an astounding amount of computation and energy, you make over-ruling most of them too wasteful to be possible. You are not solving anything that way, just showing off that you have never heard of Kwakiutl.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by arriu on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:02AM (#31096261)
You’re comparing database to a trust-less distributed fault tolerant system. Of course the db has a smaller energy footprint but it doesn’t provide the same features. It’s like saying a bicycle rolls down the road just as well as a car so we should not use the car.

There are blockchains now that are designed to be optimal for what they provide.

The bigger issue is that there are applications running on chains that clearly don’t need the features of the chain.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bertil on Thursday April 21, 2022 @01:03PM (#31112090)
I’m saying that for 95% of journeys currently done with cars, bicycles would be perfectly fine. I mean that both litterally and figuratively. More importantly, both for transport and for digital services, if we don’t switch to bicyles, there won’t be a planet to run those services for.

You are advocating for the end of the world as we know it within ten years.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by pshc on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:46AM (#31096877)
I wouldn’t say the energy use of non-proof of work chains is millions of times worse than existing traditional finance and web2 solutions. Probably comparable. There is much energy wasted in the products themselves and knock-on effects. Machine learning for ads and analytics, for example. Banks using thousands of warm bodies to push around excel spreadsheets.

Google might build some of their data centers up in Iceland, but that’s not the full picture.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by bertil on Thursday April 21, 2022 @01:01PM (#31112056)
> I wouldn’t say the energy use of non-proof of work chains is millions of times worse than existing traditional finance and web2 solutions. Probably comparable.

Then you would not know what you are talking about.

> Google might build some of their data centers up in Iceland, but that’s not the full picture.

No, they have dozens of data centers, on every continent, and all of them are in areas with cheap, carbon-neutral supply. You think that you are being smart by being dismissive about their effort, and the effort of dozens of companies who host their own infrastructure, but that condescension and lack of expertise is just one more example of why Crypto advocates are so unconvincing.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by pshc on Wednesday April 27, 2022 @09:16PM (#31187784)
Okay I have to concede the second point. Clearly I was feeling pretty flippant at the time.

Unsure about the former point.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by krzyk on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @07:26AM (#31095322)
How Etherum thing is an upgrade?

More centralization (AFAIR you need 32 ETH to get started, so ~$100000, not to mention possible issues where you loose full 32 ETH) vs a single GPU with only lose is your electricity cost.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by Capira on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:53AM (#31095051)
Bitcoin is very effective environmental activism. It accelerates our transition to renewable energies. Bitcoin makes renewable energy sources more profitable because it offers a base price for excess electricity. Any time, any place.

Furthermore, Bitcoin can lower the hidden costs of the petrodollar. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/the-hidden-costs-of-the-...

And Bitcoin incentivises having a low time preference. This leads to a much more sustainable consumer behaviour. Bitcoin helps us move away from the mentality of a throw-away society.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by telomero22 on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:39AM (#31094959)
That's really irrelevant in 2022, since 90% of blockchains are not Proof of Work anymore.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by K0nserv on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:46AM (#31095010)
Maybe 90% by count, but not 90% by volume of transactions, prominence, etc. Bitcoin seems to be entirely resistant to moving away from PoW and Ethereum have been in the process of moving to PoS for years.

Pop quiz: What will happen first, Ethereum PoS or the year of linux on the desktop?

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by dcolkitt on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @08:26AM (#31095844)
You realize the merge has already successfully completed on a testnet last month. The Geth client code for the merge is complete.

I’m willing to bet any amount you want up to $30,000 that Ethereum main net is running PoS by Dec 31 of this year.

Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by saalweachter on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @08:55AM (#31096161)
At what odds?
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by dcolkitt on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:00AM (#31096227)
1:1 I think is most fair.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by saalweachter on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:12AM (#31096376)
So you think there is only a 50-50 chance of Ethereum being proof of stake by EOY?
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by dcolkitt on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @09:59AM (#31097044)
Absolutely. Again, testnet has already merged.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by saalweachter on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @06:21PM (#31103831)
Honestly that's a lot more cautious optimism than I would have expected from someone willing to put $30k on the line.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by telomero22 on Thursday April 21, 2022 @01:34AM (#31106293)
Yes, 90% by number transactions. Binance chain, Solana, Luna, AVAX, ADA, DOT are doing around 15 million transactions a day altogether while Bitcoin and Ethereum are only doing 1.5 million altogether.
Re:On anti-crypto toxicity by pid-1 on Wednesday April 20, 2022 @07:17AM (#31095234)
90% by market cap or nominal quantity of projects?

Like, if we are using the second metric we could even create 1000s of irrelevant PoS coins to pump that baby up.