Topic: Arguing that a coin with a very low energy usage or "efficient", cannot exist - page 2. (Read 625 times)

Here something for you to think on.
On CMK positions.

1. Bitcoin     PoW
2. Ethereum PoW converting to PoS
3. Tether ,   Token
4. Binance , Token
5. Cardano, Pure PoS
6. XRP ,       Consensus

Like I said earlier when a nonPoW coin sits on #1, only then will it sink in with bitcoiners how much energy efficiently really matters.  

As far as I know, ethereum is moving to POS for a few years already and they are still not there for some strange reason.

Cardano is another example, and I already conceded of deviations from the "normal" in the shape of XRP, or ripple coin.
So I think the best counter-argument would be ripple, because as far as I know XRP doesn't use POW or POS, and they still have value, at some point they were among the largest coins. But at the same time many people don't trust it, think they are a "scam", and I think XRP is almost like a product sold by a brand, like coca cola. People would buy a Coke for $2 even if the manufacturing would cost 10 cents.

Somehow things are different when the product is a "brand name". Maybe it's the same with Cardano, maybe they managed to make a name for themselves, almost like a brand, with clever marketing, or with good arguments and good innovations.

EDIT: and a few posts earlier we established that in fact POS also requires some type of investing, in the form that you are required to hold coins. I'm not sure what implications does this have on the whole economic factor, but I'm sure it has some implications and there's also a reason most miners don't move en masse to POS alt coins mining.

Who says they aren't, according to your thought process, just the idea of moving to Proof of Stake should collapse a coin price.
So how do you reconcile that ethereum that is moving to PoS is in the #2 position
and many market analyst predict that ethereum will become #1 coin on CMK.
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/buying-stocks/articles/why-ethereum-is-surging-and-could-surpass-bitcoin/


Cardano currently a Pure active PoS coins is in the #5 position on CMK, according to you , that can't happen.
Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash pure PoW coins have fallen outside the top 10 coins.

Energy efficiency matters, and no matter how much bictoiners want to deny it, the marketplace have begun showing it.
But I am guessing for the majority of bitcoin energy waste deniers, it won't really sink in ,
until ethereum or cardano are sitting at the #1 position on CMK.  


FYI:
PoS does use energy,
but it only requires a portion of the energy used by a node, which can easily be all renewable since it has such little requirements.
While Bitcoin PoW is using the energy resources of almost a midsize country, and what does all that increase energy get you,
nothing but increased environment damage and larger energy bills for people on the same grids.
*Notice as Bitcoin Energy waste increases there is no increase in onchain transaction performance.*
Bitcoin onchaiin PoW~ 7 transactions per second.
Ethereum onchain   ~20 Transactions per second
Cardano pure PoS  ~257 Transactions per second

I found another hole in the whole "let's mine cryptocoins using almost no energy" logic.

If that is a viable alternative, how come miners don't all shift to those magic coins which cost almost zero energy to produce but which you can sell with tons of dollars profit ? Or at least shift a large percent of their facilities to that.
I mean miners are focused on profit right ? They are not altruistic, concerned only with the environment.

If they don't do that, it means it's an economic impossibility, like a perpetuum mobile, as the title of this thread.

If it's a PoW blockchain cryptocurrency, I think you're right that it's impossible to make it sustainable in a way Musk imagines. However, I think there can be a few workarounds that could help with the ecological impact:
1. Legislation that boosts shifting from coal to renewable energy (not just for BTC, but for any electricity usage).
2. Using more coins and dividing the load between them. I'm not sure if this can really help, but perhaps if people used Bitcoin a little less and Ethereum, Litecoin, Doge and other coins a little more, there wouldn't be such a high demand for mining Bitcoin specifically. However, the demand will increase for other coins, so maybe it doesn't make a difference.
3. Using DAG coins like IOTA that solve the scalability issue in the long run.

Red & caps was because I did not feel like separating your quotes.

I get it , you're so smart, the news must all be wrong about the bans in sections of China & New York.

Note, we were talking about ACs not cars, but hey you're so smart.

In fact , you're so smart, their is really no point in us conversing,
because your smart mind is closed to the problems that PoW is going to cause, and the last thing I care to do is to change your mind.  
Keep your PoW is great mindset.

Have a nice day.  

When you know your opponents are not arguing in good faith then there is no point in engaging with them, if this was caused because of ignorance then we could explain to them why they are wrong but when we know they are exaggerating how much energy the miners are using, when they are misrepresenting the sources which in most cases are green sources of energy and when they try to make it seem as if the system in place is more efficient when it is not, you know there is no point in engaging with them at all.

The last time I checked it took A LOT of energy to mine precious metals.  Moreover how many banks, ATMs, machines etc operate to move fiat?  Massive amounts of "energy" are needed to process and hold fiat currency.

The only reason these fools are picking on bitcoin is that they don't understand it or simply hate it because they don't have any.

I understand that to mint/mine POS coins, you are not looking at investing $5000 in energy so you can sell the product with $10 000, but instead you need to invest in owning and staking a certain amount of coins so you can get a certain amount of returns. What percent of returns vs the investment percent, it seems it's not known. But the concept is clear so far.
  But how do you get the initial coins ? The first batch ?

Because in the case of POW coins even the very first coins you obtain by paying for the energy.
Is the first POS batch of coins generated "for free" or something like that ?

Got triggered? WHY THE SHOUTING IN CAPS AND RED?

1) China has not banned mining as you can easily see from the current hashrate, and last time I checked New York wasn't a country.
2) What waste?
3) Bad analogy, cars have become 10 times more efficient that doesn't mean world fuel consumption has gone down.
4) Well, at least we're not arguing on this one?
 

FYI:
MAR 5, 2019
Plattsburgh Ends Cryptocurrency Moratorium

Do your research better next time.

PoW , Proof of Waste is becoming a PR and environmental problem, and so far none of the bitcoiners have offered a solution.
And the excuses made to why energy waste is not a problem for bitcoin, has made no inroads with anyone.


FYI:
One of the 1st places to ban bitcoin mining
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/16/17128678/plattsburgh-new-york-ban-cryptocurrency-mining

BTC Energy waste is a real problem, and ignoring it , won't make it go away.

Name the increasing number of countries that have banned bitcoin mining


If energy prices go up it's fairly obvious that bitcoins' energy consumption will go down.
Use logic, if one kwh would be 1$, even assuming no other costs no nothing and only the most efficient gear the hash rate would drop to one third in an instant.
It's not the poor persons who would be affected by an increase of 10% in something that is less than 10% of their monthly expenses, but a few miners for who such an increase would mean shutting down.


Just how we are protecting them from all the traffic in the cities, all the coal burned for air conditioning, and watching pornhub.
 

Carbon neutral is a bullshit expression and anyone who has done at least 1 year of chemistry knows that. Just because you plant one thousand trees like some are claims is doing, doesn't make you carbon neutral, when those trees die the entire carbon that has been sequestered is released back in the atmosphere, goodbye neutrality. Using only solar panels? How are those made? How much they last? How many components are rendered obsolete in all datacenters every year and thrown away? There is no such thing as carbon-neutral activity in human society.


PoS is a Piece of S#$%

I suggest you look at ethereum #2 on CMK , and cardano #4 on CMK,
Ethereum is on a track to convert to PoS , and Cardano is already fully PoS.
So it appears the markets have started to notice, and no one is worried about their security structure, so maybe join us in 2021 ,
where the PoS coins have been used since 2013 without any of the misplaced fears propagated by PoW supporters coming to fruition.

PoS is one solution, don't want PoS,
then you need to come up with something else, before most politicians ban mining to protect their citizens.
Claiming their are no problems with bitcoin's energy waste won't be looked on as a solution.

Answer the following
1. how do you plan to stop the increased banning of btc miners by cities and countries?
2. how will you compensate the poor for their increased energy prices , when they are competing with rich btc miners?
3. how will you protect the poor with respiratory problems that suffer from increased air pollution from the extra coal burned?
4. how can you make bitcoin close to carbon neutral before 2050.

If you can solve the above 4 problems, then no one will care if Bitcoin stays PoW,
but if you can't, well then , the trainwreck of an energy waste reckoning is coming.  
So what say you?  

Since negativity will always have a stronger grip in the mind than the positive side of things, news will never have no negative headlines in it. This happened with crypto where they do their best to find a rough edge that they can capitalize on and exhibit to those who aren't aware of what cryptocurrencies are, to of course put the industry in a bad light. It's up to the viewers if they will fall easily to this trap or if they are to conduct their own research.

When you need to create a new negative news background, you should just start telling something like that. And it doesn't matter that it is illogical and defies logic - just tell millions of people about it and they will tell their friends, and they, in turn, will tell theirs - and the job is done. We observed this week how the markets are being manipulated and the cryptocurrency market, unfortunately, is no exception. I would very much like everyone to remember this lesson for a long time and in the future we would rely on some objective information and not this "news".

Taking into account that the main current usage of bitcoin is as a store of value then securing the network is of the utmost importance, moving to another way to secure the network not only will deny miners from a source of revenue and will make them lose their investment but it will also put the network at risk, people are complaining about the energy consumption of bitcoin simply because they think bitcoin is optional while fiat currencies are not, once they face a financial crisis like what we have never seen before I am sure they will change their tune relatively quickly.

Just google a search using "power usage of internet" and you will find that mining uses just a fraction of what other things - mainly streaming services - use. At one time not so many years ago using the same FUD data it was said that streaming would use all available power. Well it hasn't. Mining energy usage is just the latest media clickbait to garner eyeballs.

People never stop talking about this wasting energy thing. Well I do understand the reason why they are always complaining about it. Maybe by the time that renewable energy sources are everywhere, things are going to change and people are going to see it in a totally different way. Although another thing I do think is that everything has their disadvantages. It's just like the other day I was discussing all these different sources of energy with my friends and they were all pointing out the disadvantages of each source.

I believe that solar energy is the right source of clean energy and wouldn't do no harm to mother nature, though one of them did make a statement that solar energy is associated with pollution and indirectly affects our environment. But I think it's far less than what others can cause.

If the energy use serves a purpose, it is not "wasting".


Many? Perhaps.  An overwhelming majority?  No.

It's not going to happen. Get over it.  If you prefer POS, go find a shitcoin.


They don't.  GPU was FAR more energy efficient than CPU.  ASIC were FAR more efficient than GPU.  Today's ASIC are FAR more efficient than the ASIC of the past.  Bitcoin equipment is CONSTANTLY getting more efficient, that's WHY old equipment is useless.

Does Bitcoin use more total energy now than in the past?  Sure.  But that's not because it's less efficient.  That's because it's more secure, and because it's securing more value.  Securing the same amount of value with the same level of security with CPUs would use millions of times more electricity.  Bitcoin has only gotten to the value and security it has today BECAUSE it has gotten more efficient.

Efficiency is NOT a measure of how much energy something uses.  It's a measure of how much energy something uses PER UNIT OF WHATEVER THAT ENERGY IS ACCOMPLISHING.  As an example, which vehicle is more efficient, the one that burns 10 gallons of gasoline, or the one that burns 50 gallons?  That's not an answerable question.  If they both drove 1000 miles on that that gasoline, then sure, the 10 gallon vehicle is more efficient.  However, if the 50 gallon vehicle drove 1000 miles on that 50 gallons, while the 10 gallon vehicle only drove 100 miles on it's 10 gallons, then the 50 gallon vehicle is much more efficient.

There was a time when I used to think that PoS was superior to PoW. But the more I studied about these algorithms, I came to know that PoS is a less secure system, where decentralization can be under threat. And you are right in saying that if PoS was actually superior, then some of these coins might have already overtaken Bitcoin in terms of usage and market cap. PoW may be more energy consuming, but it makes sure that Bitcoin can't be controlled by some organization or individual.