Depending on the implementation of PoS, there could be all kinds of incentives or pressures for a lot of distributed computing power to get thrown at it, despite it only needing a fraction of that.
None of that is a problem if the system is #1 displacing other higher consuming systems and #2 not actively harming people.
Re: #1 So far most of what I've seen out of blockchain seems additive - it's not replacing old systems, it's layering on new systems. But it's still early days, maybe that'll change.
As for #2, well, it's hard to trace the exact benefits and harms of blockchain we've seen so far. Which leaves me to fall back on history. You can call me a commie if you want to, but a system that benefits capital over labour usually shakes out to benefit a few while harming many ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There are ~380k validators on the beacon chain now. There are 20M PS5 + Xbox sold already. A video game console consumes as much as 300W during usage, and even on idle can consume as much as a validator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_stake
> In 2021 a study by the University of London found that in general the energy consumption of the Proof-of Work based Bitcoin was about 1,000 times higher than that of the highest consuming proof of stake system that was studied
1,000x is not 10,000x
> They also couldn't find the energy consumption of a proof of stake system on a large scale as such a system does not exist at the time of the report.[16][17]
Big systems have big side effects. As others have said, I'll believe it when I see it.
Eth PoS network already exists, what is missing is for the transition to be completed (aka, the "Merge")
Anyway: 380k validators at 10W and assuming the cost of the kwH to be $0.25 (which is more than the world's average cost) amounts to ~8 million USD /year. That seems to me more than acceptable if it means that we are securing a blockchain that is already holding more than ~500B in assets.
Also, for the record, your back-of-the-envelope estimate - 32,000,000 kwh assuming I reversed it correctly - corresponds to about 27,200,000 lbs of carbon @ 0.85lbs/kwh - the average for all US electricity production in 2020.
Convert from lbs to 12337.7125 metric tons, divided by the 141 mT of carbon stored per acre of rainforest. Which makes the answer:
87.5 acres of rainforest burnt per year by PoS, before full adoption.
And forgive me if I don't act all-too-shocked by your numbers, judging from all your posts about iOS and Apple stuff, I can easily see that your talk is cheap. Come back when your consumer habits actually match your concern about the environment.
My point isn’t that every new user adds n new validators. My point is that larger the network and the more money involved, the more reasons there are to be a validator. They’re linked, just not directly.
As for my own activities, first - my carbon output doesn’t negate your carbon output, they’re both something we need to tackle. Second - I’d be the first one to say that the apple tech ecosystem has huge carbon costs that haven’t been reckoned with. That’s a big part of why I’ve been refocusing my attentions in the 6 years since 2016 when I last posted something about iOS.
Not exactly. Even for PoS, there will be a threshold where it is not as profitable to be a validator, leading people to rebalance their ETH allocation.
Proof of stake doesn't actually eliminate the carbon impact of these systems, it just improves the efficiency. There are still many computers running for the express purpose of buying autographed drawings of monkeys.