397
Over 2 percent of the US’s electricity generation now goes to bitcoin
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
397 points (93.1% liked)
News
23267 readers
3053 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Does someone feel like giving me an ELI5 why Bitcoin mining eats up so much electricity these days? Is it just because the problems the machines need to solve have gotten more complex? Do other cryptos tax the resources as bad? Is there a viable crypto that would be considered “green” at this point?
Sorry for overboarding my questions if anyone even attempts to answer this lol
All crypto is essentially designed around competition for who gets to be the one mining it. Things escalate, and that's how you end up with these ridiculous crypto farms that use as much power as entire cities. No crypto currency is "green". And UNLIKE cars, lights or banking, crypto serves no purpose, it's currency that doesn't get spent, it's basically just there to fuel speculation for tech bros.
Crypto is a complete waste of energy, it's not 'big money spinning Bitcoin as negative', it's just objectively idiotic, don't listen to that comment.
If you haven't, I recommend watching Dan Olson's documentary "Line Goes Up" on Youtube.
No currency is green. Crypto, fiat or visa etc it all burns resources to maintain
Difference is that crypto is barely even a currency, it's basically just a vehicle for speculation. Visa is actually useful.
Price goes up, chances go down, more people/machines trying to mine, more electricity usage.
If you want to have rather green cryptos, you need to exclude those who rely on proof-of-work to secure the network.
Btw. Ethereum showed that a transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake is possible.
If you're not interested in the complexities that a lot of cryptos have, because you just want to transfer value efficiently, have a look at Nano (https://nano.org)
I have heard nano uses a lot less energy compared to Crypto. Though how does it compare to visa/traditional payment systems?
The problem with nano is that it makes the assumption you can just give away transaction space for free. You can't. If you do, spammers and other low-value uses take up all the space. The more space gets taken up, the more expensive it is to run a node, and the more centralized your network becomes. So what did they do when they ran into this problem? They added a proof-of-work component. The very thing they created their coin to avoid! If you look at almost all of these non-PoW cryptos, the only reason they can get better transactions per second or low tx fees is because they are very centralized or because nobody is actually competing for that space because nobody uses them.
Bitcoin solves this scaling/fee problem with Bitcoin lightning, which is a layer on top of the main chain. The main chain provides security, while actual transactions live on the second layer. Fees on lightning measure in the pennies and confirm instantly. The scale you can take lightning to is basically infinite. That's actually useful as a currency.
Nano has alwas has a computational part associated with transactions. It once was used to prioritize transactions. Nano has evolved to a different prioritization scheme. That computational part will be phased out.
The lightning network is a silly attempt to merge bad parts of cryptocurrencies with bad parts of traditional finance: you need the electric energy guzzling Bitcoin and middlemen just like in traditional finance - or would you care to open and close your own channels, pay watchtowers etc. or "simply" use the channels of middlemen?
And how would you have cheap transactions without those middlemen, if operating your own channels requires transactions on layer 1?
We'll see. It had to be "phased in" in the first place for a reason. Either you limit chain space and charge for it, or your chain grows an infinite size. There is no way around that problem.
Because once a channel is opened, you can have essentially infinite transactions within it. So there is not a 1:1 relationship between channel opening/closing costs (layer 1) and transaction relaying costs (lightning). You need the layer 1 underneath to provide the security for the lightning transactions. Without layer 1, if somebody you are transacting with doesn't follow the rules, you have no way to enforce the rules. Incentives are setup in such a way that it's incredible rare you ever need to to go L1 to get that enforcement, since the deck is stacked against anybody who tries to break the rules.
I stated the reason for it being phased in: prioritizing transactions.
Tell me how to keep a channel open without risking loss of funds through flood and loot attacks.
The attacks you can do in lightning are very limited. Basically the only one you can do is force close a channel and broadcast an old state on-chain. But your other party in the channel can correct you by publishing the more recent state. They have several days to do this. If you tried to cheat this way, not only do you not get the coins you wanted, but there is a penalty as well. You lose money. So nobody ever does it.
There's about 200M USD currently locked up in lightning contracts. If you think you can hack lighting, have at it. The best hackers in the world have tried, they have all failed.
https://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity
Indeed it does use little energy, because its consensus is in some ways similar to PoS, so there's no mining involved. If you want to know more about it, have a look here: https://docs.nano.org/protocol-design/orv-consensus/
I believe that the Nano network can process around 100 transactions per second; at least that's a result from throughput tests I remember. That's way less than VISA can do, but a lot more than most other cryptocurrencies can process.
And in difference to the vast majority of cryptocurrencies, Nano has no built-in limits of transactions per second. As soon as hardware gets more powerful (faster CPUs, faster network connection, faster SSDs), Nano gets faster!
the power is needed because trustless distribsuted ledger is mathematically impossible.
So there has to be some mechanism that actually prevents someone being able to just change anything at will. This is the mathematical impossibility part. What bitcoin does to get around it is to (artificially) make it cost resources to write into the ledger by making everyone solve a random useless puzzle. And with each block depending on the one preceding it, changing implies also changing all the subsequent ones.
This of course assumes that the chain is ever growing, otherwise the attacker just needs time to catch up. Bitcoin's security guarantees come from ensuring the network keeps growing faster than any one single entity could write to it. The only thing that keeps anyone from writing whatever is that they just can't do it fast enough.
This implies that the network is only (probabilistically) secure as long as there are people mining it. If people stop mining, bitcoin instantly loses all of its security.
It then follows that the security of the chain depends on its ability to keep its users wanting to mine it. This is handled by it being a currency. something that humans would have a psychological need to hoard.
This is also why any non-cryptocurrency application of blockchain simply cannot possibly work.
the power is needed because trustless distribsuted ledger is mathematically impossible.
So there has to be some mechanism that actually prevents someone being able to just change anything at will. This is the mathematical impossibility part. What bitcoin does to get around it is to (artificially) make it cost resources to write into the ledger by making everyone solve a random useless puzzle. And with each block depending on the one preceding it, changing implies also changing all the subsequent ones.
This of course assumes that the chain is ever growing, otherwise the attacker just needs time to catch up. Bitcoin's security guarantees come from ensuring the network keeps growing faster than any one single entity could write to it. The only thing that keeps anyone from writing whatever is that they just can't do it fast enough.
This implies that the network is only (probabilistically) secure as long as there are people mining it. If people stop mining, bitcoin instantly loses all of its security.
It then follows that the security of the chain depends on its ability to keep its users wanting to mine it. This is handled by it being a currency. something that humans would have a psychological need to hoard.
This is also why any non-cryptocurrency application of blockchain simply cannot possibly work.
It is the cost of securing the network. It is intentional as if it was low power and easy to mine, 1 person or organization could take over the network and thus it would loose its decentralization. Nothing wrong with using power as long as it is green. No one is complaining about how much energy social media uses, or electric cars, or the fiat banking systems or all the lights left on etc etc. Power usage is not the issue here, it is power generation. You best believe that big money is spinning Bitcoin as negative as possible as it is a threat to their establishment. Don’t be a sucker for the BS.
It still a problem if it’s using green power as it’s preventing that green power from replacing fossil fuels in more useful and essential parts of the economy. Therefore essentially increasing demand for fossil fuels. Additionally by increasing the nations total energy use it’s making the task of decarbonising energy just that little bit harder.
The problem with green energy is that it produces on its own schedule, divorced of when people actually want electricity. Bitcoin miners are "buyers of last resort". They have to compete with every other miner on the planet, they don't buy electric at peak usage hours (which is when you fire up the non-renewables to meet demand). If anybody else was there to buy that electricity, Bitcoin miners don't. They can only afford the cheapest electricity and electricity which has nowhere else to go.
Bitcoin mining is part of the green revolution. By always having a buyer of last resort, it makes it easier to invest in renewable infrastructure knowing that somebody will always buy the power even if demand isn't ordinarily there to meet supply. It allows you to build your grid out to be almost entirely renewables. It's a form of energy storage. And it means when regular people buy power, it's cheaper, because they don't have to make up for that time period when electricity was being produced but there was nobody to buy it. Regular people don't have to subsidize the cost of a solar panel farm that is only useful for a few hours a day when demand is at the peak and otherwise produces energy there is no use for.
Energy use is going up with or without crypto. It is a solvable problem. We just have to have the will. The focus should be on more green power, not restricting those who use it already.
Yeah, but the problem is that the green energy could have gone to powering a hospital or a factory, something actually useful. But instead it’s going to crypto. The hospital and the factory still need power and they are likely to pull it from a fossil fuel source. Essentially ’green’ crypto mining is creating demand for fossil fuels making it not actually green. Also we don’t have the time for our energy transition to be slowed down by crypto. Especially considering how utterly useless it is.
You can make this argument with anything that demands electricity. This is how we generate full stop. Anything else is a distraction that propaganda has placed in your mind.