Topic: Ignoring Bitcoin Power Waste and the Crackdown on Mining it is about to Bring. (Read 257 times)

It has been a long time issue, bitcoin farming and environmental issues, energy waste, etc. I guess it all goes down to regulations, there are some mining farms that use natural energy and not to mention that everything consumes energy and resources. Creating plastic money such as debit/credit cards requires resources and energy, creating fiat, atm machines, bank operations requires the same.

Of course, the issue of power consumption relative to Bitcoin mining will always be an issue of concern all because not all places can be able to accommodate the demand of power by this industry. That is why some locations in China are already feeling the heat since mining is taking a big slice of the available supply. Now, this would not be an issue with places with excessive power availability. However, because of this problem, there are now many viable projects that are also sourcing their own power supplies and many of them are using renewable alternatives like solar, wind and hydro. I remember that there are two big projects located in Texas which are using solar power for their own needs. Maybe as long as there is money to be made here, mining will be adopting to whatever problems or challenges at hand.

if you take a s17 (70thash) and look at the 70,000,000thash hashrate (1mill asics min)

and then see news of '7000 asics' thats 0.7%
not much of a crackdown

also the so called crackdown is not the big farms. but hobbiests of 1-5 asics each who dont do proper regulatory granted electricity contracts. its people using the 'residential allotment of electric for non-residential purposes (running a business without declaring)

the proper asic farms do have contracts with power companies..
this topics news is about hobby miners not farms

people with 1-5 asics are not  farm, they are more like hanging basket gardeners

Proof of Stake is not trust minimized by design and isn't any different from any permissioned database where someone has to let you in and decide how much control you get.
You literally cannot enter into proof of stake as an independent without someone choosing to permit you access by choosing to give up some coins to give you or sell you.

Without permissionless entry you cannot guarantee a single trusted party or a trusted party of insiders at that point can't prevent anyone independent who disagrees with them from entering which renders it permanently centralized in control to internal party (from time it starts)

Proof of Work is the only known solution for this at this point as it's based on unfakeable metrics outside of the network that not only lets anyone enter but forces costs on them so they give up coins to even more people. Proof of Stake is entirely internal and thus not safe.

Additionally, on top of being permissioned by design, staking reward is literally incentivised centralization of control. You can grow % you control by staking by taking advantage of the fact that anyone not staking loses control.

Additionally, Proof of Work difficulty adjustments on average guarantee miner costs are approximately equal to their reward, it incentivizes the sale of coins to cover those costs which leads to improved distribution of control and miners reliance on the markets made of users to buy those coins from them at high value. Misbehavior by miners on any chain or fork would be met with decline in dollar value of rewards they depend on and thus cost them ability to cover their sunk costs. Proof of stake has no mechanism to incentivize stake owners would want to sell any coins.

Additionally, Proof of Work equipment ages out and causes massive costs of equipment to be continuously paid by miners, not just electricity. This allows replacement of miners who were unable to cover their costs over time and most attacks are expensive can be waited out. Proof of Stake holders can hold on forever.

So let's summarize:

Proof of stake allows permanent control with no incentive to give it up, the payouts actually reward growth of centralized control, entire system is always permissioned, and thus cannot be trust minimized or decentralized.

Proof of Work costs energy and yet is the best and only solution for Bitcoin we know of that has none of the above mistakes.

It's kinda funny reading through the research papers, because one group's narrative is to highlight how harmful mining is and exaggerate their numbers to make a (false) statement, and the other group's narrative is to highlight how non-harmful mining is. In both cases it's better to just ignore the research papers because you won't get any closer to the truth at all.

In all honesty, I don't even care about what the actual impact is. Neither have I ever cared about what the impact is of Google's datacenters, or the financial system's consumption of electricity. Just use it if it's useful to you, if not, then don't use it.

One day people will be happy that Bitcoin exists, because it's picking up where Gold can't fulfill its promise as currency in today's digital era.

Okay, first I want to say that I find it weird that you quote a case in China to prove your point. Those who talk about problems with mining often push the ecological thing, and I truly support that, but China is not a good example. While I remember there've been articles specifically saying that China is against mining for ecological reasons, this is ridiculous, since it's one of the biggest polluters in the world talking, and clearly China has other real reasons to be against Bitcoin.
As for mining in general, it seems hard to determine whether it's an ecological problem or not, I've seen conflicting research on that matter.
When someone's mining coins illegally and this is causing problems for other people, it should definitely be stopped. But I don't think it's realistic to think Bitcoin would become PoS, and neither does it seem realistic that electricity consumption will reduce. So I think we have to work on more eco-friendly ways of consuming energy.

10.2   Iran also banned this before declaring it legal last year. Miners living in areas where electricity is cheap are taking advantage of cheap electricity to mine bitcoins while depriving other consumers from electricity. There must be some regulations on mining that anyone who is mining must be extra for this commercial usage.

Iran seizes 1,000 Bitcoin mining machines after power spike

PoW is no doubt what secures the bitcoin network from attacks but at the cost of too much power and expensive hardware. PoW in my opinion is only bad thing satoshi implemented while designing bitcoin network. If Vitalik Buterin can think about PoS then why don’t that be proposed by satoshi in the start or something similar to that. With growing complexity mining will intensify and we will see more such crackdowns.

i disagree. this phenomenon is 100% expected. the same thing has been happening for the past couple years in places like upstate new york. miners flood regions with cheap electricity rates, stressing the power grid and causing shortages.

local governments will deal with this by restricting mining operations, charging miners higher rates or taxes, etc. the market will adjust; miners will respond by moving elsewhere. life will go on......

No, coal if actually damn efficient, that's why power cost in China is that cheap.
Good old coal is dirt cheap and coal power plants are easy to be built and maintained, the only drawback is that you can't make it environment friendly without large investments.
But in terms of pure costs, nothing beats coal and nuclear.
Without government subsidies, solar and wind would stand no chance.

There are many countries in the world where electricity is scarce and power distribution policy is defined to supply electricity to all stakeholders. If authorities in Sichuan are curbing against miners, I am sure its to stop too much energy going to miners and provide electricity to other stakeholders like domestic users and industries.

I don't think anyone actually says excessive energy is not an issue. Energy consumption will always be an issue, but not the issue that it is being presented as. First of all, the cost-benefit analysis is seldom fair and seldom comprehensive. True, the energy usage is significant, but the benefit of decentralised security, which makes a hack economically unviable for a bad actor, that is priceless and possibly worth far more than the associated costs.

And governments cracking down on miners isn't a reflection of them draining power, it's a reflection of miners simply not giving back their due, or not paying the price they should be. Any industry draining energy will get the same attention from any state if you don't pay up or if you're using subsidies meant for other sectors.

Well, no matter the anywhere in the world, the moment there is concentration of industries of a particular purpose with limited energy, there is bound to be the bickering that we are seeing here and it can happen anywhere and that is why there are provisions for industrial cities across the world. For companies that are concentrated, there is always a special provision from the State energy distributor to ensure that they are supplied more electricity compared to pure residential locations in the same locality.

The solution is for the mining companies come together either to disintegrate themselves from the community grid and find their own alternative source of energy or they arrange with the energy distributor to give them more power to the extent that the immediate communities would see their presence as an advantage for enjoying more stable power.

It might be an issue in that particular part of China, but the Chinese brought it on themselves by offering extremely low electricity rates to miners (which is the reason mining got concentrated in China).

In other parts of the world it's different. Iceland's electricity is entirely geothermal and they've got a lot of miners too. And parts of Europe are developing an excess of wind energy and miners are benefitting from that too.

I agree with you that having so much money they could buy a lot of solar panels and have good mining efficiency, but they decided otherwise

Taking this seriously, there are many cryptocurrencies ever launched and it is in fact evident that bitcoin do really utilizes more power consumption than other. If we are to devise a better solution, it is much easier if we focus on codes rather than focus on a bigger aspect which is improving power generation. Because it will cost allot but I think if we could both develop these technologies, it is quite better.

The more Bitcoin increases, the stronger the exploitation of bitcoin takes place. What a pity if we ignore Bitcoin energy waste. Do you know the EMJAC IEO project: Turning waste into green energy. EMJAC will launch its EMJ cryptocurrency through an IEO. I think this is a great success on the journey to build a transparent, secure blockchain ecosystem and contribute to making us the leading digital platform to convert waste into green renewable energy.
In fact, EMJAC's vision is highly appreciated, it will ignite the initiative and the door for mass adoption, ultimately allowing the industry to reach the full development potential.

I think the issue is not really waste of electricity but lack of supply meaning to say that consumption coming from Bitcoin mining has already affected the supply intended for regular consumers and business community. That means that Bitcoin mining operators must be thinking of relocating somewhere where there is a clear excess of power which they can availed of. For sure, when there is a shortage of power, there will really be a big issue because the government will have a tendency to sacrifice Bitcoin mining business.

IMHO, the problem isn't really Bitcoin. The real problem is how the electricity is being generated. Currently,china uses a lot of coal to generate electricity,which is not the most efficient way and has a huge impact too. If people used better sources of electricity like solar panels, hydro-mining etc.. We can definetely reduce the harm that Bitcoin is causing nowadays. Finally,I think that's the way we should think,don't expect Bitcoin to stop using PoW as consensus overnight, it's not going to happen. You'd better be looking after Green coins rather than expecting a change in Bitcoin's consensus 

Bitcoin does have in fact problems in energy consumption. And knowing that China is the country warning Bitcoin miners could be a threat to the network, not now but maybe after a few years, if the PoW system won't be improved. Since more than half of the Bitcoin's Network is located in China, it could bring a critical hit to Bitcoin.

Though there is a chance that Chinese Government announced such news with political reasons. They are known to currently making their own cryptocurrency, and may just wanted to have something that could pin down Bitcoin to effectively ban it in their country.