Topic: Your experiences with energy efficient cryptocurrencies? (Read 301 times)

Of course, there are no cryptocurrencies that do not consume energy. But there are blockchains that consume more energy. And others that are more energy efficient. Everyone has to research the different advantages and disadvantages for themselves and then draw their own conclusions.

No one has to buy cryptocurrencies. And the buying decisions change the prices and the supply. I'm optimistic that demand will take care of that in the long run. And cryptocurrencies, which I believe can be the next big thing because they have the potential to be a gamechanger, also have a strong community that continues to develop and improve the project. As a result, there are also no perfect cryptocurrencies. But there are those that are constantly improving. And more is simply not possible.

Thank you for all the opinions and views that have been gathered here!

But it shows that the problem has been recognized. Even if you only talk about it, it brings a lot. At some point, the point comes where just talking is no longer enough and action must follow. Without talking about it, it does not come to this point.
Why should you develop green energy only for cryptocurrencies?
The problem is the high energy consumption and the environmental damage caused by the production of the energy. Who consumes the energy is beside the point - the energy is consumed. Cryptocurrencies are just a consumer here. From my point of view, not an important one. That is why it is even more important to save energy here otherwise the energy consumption does not justify the benefit of cryptocurrencies. If I want further development of cryptocurrencies, these problems must be rectified.
With Idena, it is an attempt to reign on these problems. It consumes less energy. Is decentralized and more democratic because each person has a voice.
If we focus purely on energy consumption, why don't you see Idena as an improvement?

I think energy-efficient cryptocurrencies are just opinion or talk. So far what they say green energy has never been one that they have managed to just dissipate. In fact, in some time I have never seen a project that develops green energy or environmentally friendly energy for cryptocurrencies. The fact is that cryptocurrencies that are environmentally friendly and energy efficient have not yet been discovered.

I don't think it's that easy to say what exactly investors should put their money into. The world has been and is currently being shaken by a number of crises. And crises often lead to change. I don't know what the situation is with energy prices in the countries where you live. But in our country, the prices for heating and electricity are rising very sharply at the moment. This is forcing a lot of people to save energy, whether they want to or not. That probably won't affect miners in China or Russia much. But I don't think it's fair if not everyone has the same opportunities to participate.

This is exactly what I see as the problem with Proof of Work Blockchains. Individual miners, especially if they live in countries with expensive energy prices, are disadvantaged. Personally, I think that wealth and power should be distributed more fairly than is currently the case globally.

I also have a broad portfolio and look forward to what the future holds. However, like you, I would be happy to see previously undervalued cryptocurrencies, whose potential I believe in, increase in value and importance!

I also invested quite a bit in Cardano last year and hold my coins. I don't believe in selling out of panic. But I personally only invest money in cryptocurrencies that I don't need immediately. So I can wait reasonably calmly to see how the prices develop. And I am also confident that they will recover sooner or later.

I also find this idea of high energy consumption frightening. But I can understand when other people come to different conclusions. Ultimately, everyone has to make the investment decisions that they think are right and promising.

Climate change has been used as a scapegoat to defame a number of things, whatever you might believe, other power sources are not that "green" as we think them to be. The carbon footprint of cars and vehicles are way more than what bitcoin mining produces. Hence this topic has been debunked a number of times, but it keeps coming back.

The power consumed in mining would be much higher with a banking and the rest of the transactions in the world. There are so many graphs from legitimate sources available on the internet to prove this.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-research-bitcoins-carbon-footprint-lower-than-previously-thought

Bullshit, PoW is the only thing that investors should put money in. Just because PoS does not use energy to that extent as PoW, does not mean it is profitable and neither is it good for the long term in your portfolio.

Dont think about what carbon footprint you are ending up generating. It is an inevitable process that you cannot stop so stop bothering about it.

It's hard to put this together in a way that doesn't sound conspiratorial, but I'll try anyway. It's up to you to DYOR. There is an obvious climate agenda that is promoted by major government and non-government organizations as well as non-profit action groups. Whether you believe in climate change or not, or whether it is man made, there are groups working to limit carbon emissions and something known as "carbon credits" now exists in two fields, regulated and non-regulated credits. Currently, some governments may require carbon emitters to purchase official carbon credits to offset their emissions but there is no global tax/standard on carbon emissions credits *yet. Blockchain technology is considered the "fourth industrial revolution" and coincides with some of the agendas promoted by the WEF and others. So it makes sense that popular blockchains are promoting themselves as carbon neutral or negative. Unfortunately, there are some groups that act to certify lands for carbon credits but the dark secret behind it is that these groups do not own the lands and they are unable to protect them in any way. I could create a project and sell carbon credits for 20 million hectares of trees in Guyana to a blockchain right now and get rich. It's all a scam until the UN creates a global carbon tax and carbon credit standard and regulates these credits. There are groups currently pushing BTC to go POS but it's unlikely that the majority of miners, which are in China and Russia, will play along so BTC might end up being forked again. That said, carbon neutral blockchains appear to be doing well because they are associated/partnered with large organizations like the WEF and others, so it makes sense to invest in projects like Celo, XRP, and CNDL that are involved in creating the new carbon credit blockchain standards.

Over the last years Bitcoin mining seems to be very energy consuming and not that efficient. Several countries are already suffering from problems with electicity power because of blocks calculation power extensive usage.

I saw a statistic a few months back that said that bitcoin mining consumed more electricity than the whole country of Ukraine and this was before the war in the Ukraine started of course. Given the fact that Ukraine is a pretty big country with a population of more than 40 million people i was really surprised about this fact and this is definitely something that is not good for the public opinion about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I think that a proof of stake mechanism can be or even is already just as safe as a proof of work mechanism like bitcoin has it because there big mining companies also have a lot of power of the network.

It's interesting to be able to participate in a project at such an early stage. Then you see all the developments. And especially with Idena you have a say. you decide with all the other participants how the project will develop. just last week an innovation was introduced after the community voted for it. My goal is to collect as much IDNA as possible with the validation. Then we'll see what comes of it, if the price goes up, that's great. If not, at least you've seen how it works in such early stages. In the Community you always get all the information and of course exchange ideas. I think that's also important to know where the journey should go. Otherwise you wouldn't really be able to understand all the votes.

ADA was my favourite crypto currency,which give huge strength to the investors.It give us good profit at all the stages of the pump.We never fear or worry about the current price of the ADA.Surely all this will recover to the good potential.When the people had their strong holding the ADA,it was assured to get enough profit from their investments in longer period.

I've used Peercoin which is a fork of Bitcoin but with pos for securing the chain and pow for distribution. I find it pretty neat. It has a small chain of just about a GiB in size and require very little in terms of compute resources. Unlike Bitcoin Peercoin have no hard cap on its supply instead burning transaction fees and rewarding stalking with minting new coins. This solves the problem of what will happen when bitcoin won't issue an reward anymore while preventing overuse of transactions due to deflation. Controll of the network lies with it's holders unlike in Bitcoin where owners of large mining farms decide what proposals should be accepted.

It was a fair non cash grab kind of a coin announced ahead of time giving everyone an equal chance to be first on the chain. No initial coin offerings or other marketing hype to pump the price to the moon. It lives a quiet life nowdays since there isn't much to say about it. It can do everything bitcoin can do and has less flaws. Unfortunately for Peercoin Bitcoin flaws are non-critical and do not matter to most users. Being first gives Bitcoin powerful legitimacy and network effects which clones can't match. Fortunately for me I hold both so it's not a big deal but it's a shame when good projects fail to bring adoption.

Peercoin still got active development though so it's not dead yet. I find it enjoyable to hold and be able to play with.

I'm not saying it's a big effort. But it is an effort. But I think it's worth it to be a part of the community and to be able to mine. You don't have to participate in the validations to be able to buy IDNA. Apart from the validations, I think that the groups on Telegram and so on also contribute to a good sense of community.

There is a lot going on in the crypto market at the moment. Let's see what will change in the future. I think that maybe some of the more popular cryptocurrencies will crash, while some previously undervalued cryptocurrencies will probably get the chance to develop their potential. And I think, as I said, like you, that green and energy-efficient cryptocurrencies that maybe even enable sharding will have advantages.

Completing four validations of about 30 minutes is not a big effort in my opinion. Then you have proven that you are human. You would have probably already after the first test, but there should be a certain hurdle for access. You also want to bind people to the validation. People have to take part in the validation, that's what the project thrives on.

I agree, that means there are Various factors like capacity, cost, stability and functionality making it a very attractive investment and Eco-friendly tokens and cost savings are the key to being one of the most popular cryptos on the market today.

I would also like the virtual world to be fairer than real life. But I think some developments are pretty similar. Unlike conventional currencies, cryptocurrencies wanted or still want to be decentralized. The power should not be in the hands of a few. Nevertheless, it is now the case, especially with popular cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, that large, organized mining pools have much more influence and benefits than individuals. This is not entirely different from the general distribution of wealth and power.

The fact that every vote in the community counts equally is something I think is better with cryptocurrencies like Idena, which are based on proof of personhood. But that requires a crypto identity that really ensures that each account can only belong to a single, real person. Getting such a crypto identity takes some effort. But in return, every participant has the same chances to receive rewards and to have a say in the game.

But if the image is conveyed, you have a problem. So you shouldn't just say it's not like that. Instead, you should reduce energy consumption. Then you can show something and counter the criticism.

This is another aspect that should certainly appeal to some people. If you already have certain disadvantages in the real world, you shouldn't have any disadvantages in the digital world. This system should not even be allowed to emerge in the digital world.

That may be true. But it is very easy to criticize cryptocurrencies for this. Many positive aspects are pushed into the background. You shouldn't expose yourself to that. Therefore, one should try to solve this problem as soon as possible. You don't have to make it easy for the haters.

What are the requirements and regulations for cryptocurrencies is already not the same everywhere in the world. And I don't believe that there will be a globally uniform solution in the future. The EU Parliament recently discussed a ban on proof of work, but then decided against it. This time. But I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that in the future there could be specifications for the power consumption of cryptocurrencies in the EU, for example.

I also believe that there is no evidence of how high the percentage of cryptos in climate change is. The global climate is incredibly complex and has so many variables that it is impossible to say exactly what is having what effect now. But there's no question that the climate is changing, is there? And also that the effects of climate change will not be particularly pretty. That's enough for me to try to live more sustainably. But it's okay for me if other people see it differently.

I believe Proof of Personhood is attractive not only because of its energy efficiency, but also because each participant's vote counts equally. So you don't have to be a member of a mining pool or hold a large share of coins to participate profitably.

The issue of global warming from cryptocurrencies is unproven, if there are findings of global warming from cryptocurrencies I'm sure the contribution is no more than 1%, haters are always looking for reasons to make FUDs and the government stop cryptocurrencies and this is actually a positive campaign from newcomers to learn and invest in cryptocurrencies.

That may be true. Nevertheless, the energy consumption is there. If saving energy is important, you can very quickly live without cryptocurrencies. The more priority given to energy consumption, the more it comes into focus. That's a big criticism. The question is: when will energy conservation become a serious requirement for cryptocurrencies? Has the point already come, is it imminent or will it take a long time to get to this point?


We'll see where the proof of personhood protocol goes. It's certainly a good step if you can save more energy and it's also more democratic.
More people would have to think about the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies, maybe there would be more changes. You can change the protocol. That wouldn't be the problem.