BTC energy footprint is NOT as bad as the FUDsters like to make it sound. Good comparison to the banking sector energy usage is here. BTC will NEVER change from PoW for the simple reason that PoW is the single best way to ensure the blockchain integrity: Attacking it requires a huge amount of hardware and energy.
Piece Of Shit on the other hand only requires the developers of the coin to simply change whatever they want to, whenever they want to or a single deep-pocket to buy up a majority of coins.
Topic: Why exactly is Bitcoin clinging to PoW? - page 8. (Read 1859 times)
Bitcoin energy consumption by Andereas Antanopolos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvFqEofdAZ0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvFqEofdAZ0
Well those are suprisingly agressive answers...
i don't see any agression here. they are correcting the wrong assumptions you've made and the misunderstanding you have of bitcoin, energy production and consumption that lead to your final conclusion about PoW needing a change. 
Well those are suprisingly agressive answers...
Maybe I missed the board, but it is called also technical discussion. I am talking about technical details of the implementation, so I might be off but not too far. Sorry if you feel like this ended up in the wrong place.
> And just how much energy does the world's leading alternative consume?? The energy FUD is a bunch of nonsense.
Do you have data to back that up? You seem to be very angry on me, I mean no harm, but clearly seem to have hit a nerve I did not intend to. If it is all FUD all is good, would welcome if you could send me the data that proofs this statement wrong.
> No. Because.... It's decentralized. There is no authority that gets to decide. You want to force mining onto renewables? Make renewables cheaper. Mining is driven by profit, it will tend towards the cheapest electricity.
Please calm down... . Can you maybe get your emotions under control and read what I actually write. Everyone including me knows all that. I made the point that the energy consumption of bitcoin could be for good if it is driving development of renewable forward by giving them even more funding.
> There are not. There will never be.
Why not? That is exactly what I wanted to know, what is the rationale? Is everything bad? If there is an actually feasible alternative, what is bad about adopting it?
> it seems you misunderstand the basics. The only way to change any consensus rule is for ALL users to agree.
no i did not understand any single thing. Of course I know that.
Whatever, I didn't expect such a toxic answer, I honestly asked what is the state and are alternative considered and if not why not. I really don't know what is wrong with that. This really felt like questioning a religion instead of questioning the status quo.
Maybe I missed the board, but it is called also technical discussion. I am talking about technical details of the implementation, so I might be off but not too far. Sorry if you feel like this ended up in the wrong place.
> And just how much energy does the world's leading alternative consume?? The energy FUD is a bunch of nonsense.
Do you have data to back that up? You seem to be very angry on me, I mean no harm, but clearly seem to have hit a nerve I did not intend to. If it is all FUD all is good, would welcome if you could send me the data that proofs this statement wrong.
> No. Because.... It's decentralized. There is no authority that gets to decide. You want to force mining onto renewables? Make renewables cheaper. Mining is driven by profit, it will tend towards the cheapest electricity.
Please calm down... . Can you maybe get your emotions under control and read what I actually write. Everyone including me knows all that. I made the point that the energy consumption of bitcoin could be for good if it is driving development of renewable forward by giving them even more funding.
> There are not. There will never be.
Why not? That is exactly what I wanted to know, what is the rationale? Is everything bad? If there is an actually feasible alternative, what is bad about adopting it?
> it seems you misunderstand the basics. The only way to change any consensus rule is for ALL users to agree.
no i did not understand any single thing. Of course I know that.
Whatever, I didn't expect such a toxic answer, I honestly asked what is the state and are alternative considered and if not why not. I really don't know what is wrong with that. This really felt like questioning a religion instead of questioning the status quo.
Proof of Work can't be Bitcoins destination.
Yet it is.
Without this kind of PoW, Bitcoin price would have not reached these levels and most probably you wouldn't talk about Bitcoin because you wouldn't have heard about it or your have been abandoning it already.
Also this topic was discussed 1000 times.
Also imho you've posted in the wrong board, this is not that technical...
But one thing is o/c right in this whole mess. Proof of Work can't be Bitcoins destination.
It is. It always has been. It was the intention from the beginning. It always will be. Get over it.
If you don't like it, there are thousands of shitcoins for you to choose from.
First of all one question is if it really still fulfills its function for decentralization.
Decentralization has nothing to do with it. Decentralization means nobody can stop you from creating a wallet and connecting to the system. Whether consensus rules change or not is determined by the consensus of the users, not by some authority.
Is a system truly decentralized or distributed when there is already just a handful of groups that would just need to agree on common terms?
it seems you misunderstand the basics. The only way to change any consensus rule is for ALL users to agree.
Energy might be another factor and important as well, so a less power hungry solution might be great,
And just how much energy does the world's leading alternative consume?? The energy FUD is a bunch of nonsense.
on the other side it could be very healthy to the renewables industry if all miners would be forced to use only green energy, since this would generate a significant amount of money flowing into those industries. But I don't see any technical way to really enforce that.
No. Because.... It's decentralized. There is no authority that gets to decide. You want to force mining onto renewables? Make renewables cheaper. Mining is driven by profit, it will tend towards the cheapest electricity.
I am a long-term user since Bitcoins inception, but I stopped following the development for some years now and hold most of my assets I bought for a few cents years ago and just do some trading from time to time. So I might be not up to date if there are efforts to move away from PoW.
There are not. There will never be.
If Bitcoin is not considering to move and evolve,
Bitcoin moves and evolves all the time, but it's not going to adopt nonsense just because some people said made up some scary things on the T.V. (or twitter)
First of all. I don't agree with MarsMan and I think what he is doing is straightforward market manipulation.
But one thing is o/c right in this whole mess. Proof of Work can't be Bitcoins destination. First of all one question is if it really still fulfills its function for decentralization. Is a system truly decentralized or distributed when there is already just a handful of groups that would just need to agree on common terms?
Energy might be another factor and important as well, so a less power hungry solution might be great, on the other side it could be very healthy to the renewables industry if all miners would be forced to use only green energy, since this would generate a significant amount of money flowing into those industries. But I don't see any technical way to really enforce that.
I am a long term user since Bitcoins inception, but I stopped following the development for some years now and hold most of my assets I bought for a few cents years ago and just do some trading from time to time. So I might be not up to date if there are efforts to move away from PoW. Can someone give me an update on this? If Bitcoin is not considering to move and evolve, what are your takes on this and why would one cling to much to PoW, just b/c of the hard fork it requires? Or are the alternatives still not mature enough?
But one thing is o/c right in this whole mess. Proof of Work can't be Bitcoins destination. First of all one question is if it really still fulfills its function for decentralization. Is a system truly decentralized or distributed when there is already just a handful of groups that would just need to agree on common terms?
Energy might be another factor and important as well, so a less power hungry solution might be great, on the other side it could be very healthy to the renewables industry if all miners would be forced to use only green energy, since this would generate a significant amount of money flowing into those industries. But I don't see any technical way to really enforce that.
I am a long term user since Bitcoins inception, but I stopped following the development for some years now and hold most of my assets I bought for a few cents years ago and just do some trading from time to time. So I might be not up to date if there are efforts to move away from PoW. Can someone give me an update on this? If Bitcoin is not considering to move and evolve, what are your takes on this and why would one cling to much to PoW, just b/c of the hard fork it requires? Or are the alternatives still not mature enough?
Jump to: