Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thanks @cryptoxrp - and I agree with the emphasis you're making.  When it comes to the environment, Bitcoin has done enough damage, and for very little return in value.  It's an atrociously-bad investment for the planet, and completely unnecessary, as we can pick any number of other decentralized validation approaches at this point.   

My hope is that even some of the early Bitcoiners with a decent amount of ethics will end up agreeing with this at some point.  We need the whole cryptomarket to set aside POW. 

In my opinion, BTC has already lost most of its value anyway; I think now is as good a time as any to set it aside, along with other POW networks. 

If people want to invest in something other than XRP, that's at least better than investing in POW cryptos that are killing the planet.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning @Hodor

I’m a little confused when comparing two measures presented but suspect there is a logical answer that my brain fueled by two cups of fairly stiff coffee can’t resolve.  My guess is the answer is quite simple.

The first table shows BTC annual electricity consumption equal to the entire nation of Austria at 26.05 TWh.  When comparing that measure to the subsequent image showing BTC annual electricity consumption equal to the Czech Republic at 68.81 TWh my head tilts back and forth like a dog watching television.  Can you please clear up my confusion?  

Many thanks again for all the rational, well-thought-out and crafted work you provide XRP enthusiasts across the globe.  Your writing is entertaining, reassuring and always well supported by a great body of work.  Your blog is perfect for sustaining our sanity on the long march to the successful delivery of the IoV.

P.S. If I were to guess the answer may tie to something with BTC and then Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin Private, Bitcoin Endless Fork…etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question is why are the environmentalist not pursuing POW like when it comes to other issues that leave a huge carbon footprint?  Is it due to a lack of understanding because this has been communicated over and over again and it seems not to be gaining much traction.  The only way I can see this really gaining attention is if we dump our BTC, I know it will hurt markets in the short term, but hopefully I have in the future Great Grandchildren etc who will be able to live in an environment that my greed and the greed of others did not screw up for the sake of lining our pockets.  I have always wanted to make a lot of money just like anyone else but some cost are just not worth it.  I will be the first to state here what little bitcoin I do have I am dumping it in lieu of other coins that do not utilize POW.  I am not saying I'm going to turn that all into XRP but some more XRP is definitely on the list of what  I will purchase.   Mines is just an individual step and I hope others will join until BTC gets it right I can't support it's growth and I know I am just a drop of rain in the sea here but again this is my personal journey you do what you feel is right for you and the future of yours.  We all may not be here to see the outcome of our works but at least I feel good that I am minimizing my personal efforts in making this planet uninhabitable for future generations so my future generations will possibly benefit from my labors and their own.

Edited by RikkiTikki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hodor said:

completely unnecessary, as we can pick any number of other decentralized validation approaches

You don't want to undermine your own valid arguments by overstating them. The trouble with comparing BTC to XRP is that most of the energy consumed by the Bitcoin network is being used to generate new coins, whereas the energy consumed by the XRP network is all being used to validate transactions. Therefore, a more valid comparision would be with a capped PoW currency that's reached the end of its emission phase and is now dependent on a fees market to incentivize its transaction validators. Effectively, Bitcoin's huge energy consumption is the price of its distribution model (and only secondarily the price of its transaction-validation model). I'm not discouraging you from criticising Bitcoin's distribution model: I'm just trying to avoid confusion between distribution controversies and validation controversies!

A definitive analysis of this subject would probably have to address the implication of Szilard's engine — the relationship between thermodynamics and information. Trust requires information about the people you're trusting, so if Szilard was right, trust has an energy cost. The Bitcoiners would probably point to the energy consumption of human validators and the energy used to illuminate/heat their offices and power their computers. If some smart mathematician has managed to reconcile BFT with the Szilard engine (or debunk the latter?), then it needs to be communicated in a way that we lesser mortals can understand.

Edited by tev
Added the word “capped” to avoid confusion with the likes of Doge or the linear tail emission currencies (although they're relevant to the discussion too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, tev said:

You don't want to undermine your own valid arguments by overstating them. The trouble with comparing BTC to XRP is that most of the energy consumed by the Bitcoin network is being used to generate new coins, whereas the energy consumed by the XRP network is all being used to validate transactions. Therefore, a more valid comparision would be with a PoW currency that's reached the end of its emission phase and is now dependent on a fees market to incentivize its transaction validators. Effectively, Bitcoin's huge energy consumption is the price of its distribution model (and only secondarily the price of its transaction-validation model). I'm not discouraging you from criticising Bitcoin's distribution model: I'm just trying to avoid confusion between distribution controversies and validation controversies!

A definitive analysis of this subject would probably have to address the implication of Szilard's engine — the relationship between thermodynamics and information. Trust requires information about the people you're trusting, so if Szilard was right, trust has an energy cost. The Bitcoiners would probably point to the energy consumption of human validators and the energy used to illuminate/heat their offices and power their computers. If some smart mathematician has managed to reconcile BFT with the Szilard engine (or debunk the latter?), then it needs to be communicated in a way that we lesser mortals can understand.

I'm confused isn't @Hodor speaking of a comparison of the entire process for the two and not just picking certain phases to compare upon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RikkiTikki said:

I'm confused isn't @Hodor speaking of a comparison of the entire process for the two and not just picking certain phases to compare upon?

He has unintentionally given his critics a stick to hit him with, by conflating the cost of producing new coins with the cost of validating transactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tev said:

He has unintentionally given his critics a stick to hit him with, by conflating the cost of producing new coins with the cost of validating transactions.

Being that XRP is pre-mined per say and no mining will occur ever for it wouldn't this always be the case in comparison.  I mean we don't even have to compare XRP, the effort it takes to get 1 bitcoin to a point where it's available on an exchange to go to a wallet whatever has a higher energy use case.  I can get 4 dollars worth of copper with a less carbon footprint then 1 dollar of BTC.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roaring_Twenties said:

The first table shows BTC annual electricity consumption equal to the entire nation of Austria at 26.05 TWh.  When comparing that measure to the subsequent image showing BTC annual electricity consumption equal to the Czech Republic at 68.81 TWh my head tilts back and forth like a dog watching television.  Can you please clear up my confusion?  

Thanks for the positive feedback, @Roaring_Twenties! I appreciate it. 

When it comes to electrical consumption, it looks like it's directly correlated to hashrate, which varies dramatically over time.  The chart here will show you how volatile the energy statistics are:

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Note:  I didn't realize there was such a difference between the two charts that are positioned that close in my blog!  I'm now wondering if I shouldn't re-order them or explain it a bit.  :JC_thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RikkiTikki said:

I have always wanted to make a lot of money just like anyone else but some cost are just not worth it. 

This struck a chord with me immediately. 

What good is 'getting rich' when future generations inherit a desert planet?  Especially when other alternatives in the cryptomarket are far better and use only a tiny fraction of the energy consumed by POW mining. 

There's a LOT of choices in crypto that don't use POW.  While I prefer XRP, I'd be happy if people just pick any of them as opposed to POW tech. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tev said:

being used to generate new coins

I don't think you have a complete understanding of how the Bitcoin network operates. 

There are two ways that miners are rewarded, until approximately the year 2140.  Both block rewards and fees. 

After all the bitcoins have been mined, the miners still do the same thing, continuing to use massive amounts of electricity, but they are only rewarded with transaction fees instead of block rewards. 

Source:  https://7bitcoins.com/what-will-happen-to-bitcoin-when-all-coins-are-mined/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, tev said:

He has unintentionally given his critics a stick to hit him with, by conflating the cost of producing new coins with the cost of validating transactions.

You are mistaken.  I explained this in my prior answer.  Mining is not complete until 2140, well after the point where the Bitcoin network is contributing to over 20% of the world's greenhouse gasses. 

And you are wrong in that "mining" is the same (competitive) no matter if miners are being rewarded with block rewards (new bitcoins) or solely transaction fees. 

Source:  https://7bitcoins.com/what-will-happen-to-bitcoin-when-all-coins-are-mined/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally PoW is getting a good dose of reality shoved in its face. It is beyond ridiculous how a small group of bitcoin zealots have kept the cryptomarkets in a stranglehold. The value of being 'the first' has run its course. 

Anyway, for my part, I avoid bitcoin and other PoW-based cryptocurrencies whenever possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have yet to see what will happen if there's a fee market, although there's much discussion about it between the two sides in the capped versus inflating arguments that rage elsewhere. But I'm not really trying to pick an argument with you, because we agree that Bitcoin's energy consumption is a problem. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...