The Lemon Fool

Having no interest in crypto, I'd never paid much attention to its energy consumption, but this article caught my eye.
Running Ethereum uses roughly the energy equivalent of Chile, or rather it did, because as of last week it is moving to a less hungry model.
The world's second-largest cryptocurrency is poised on the brink of a transformational overhaul. Within hours, "the merge" will happen, and the Ethereum network will eliminate 99.95% of its monstrous ~78 terawatt-hours per year energy consumption.

Perhaps instead of fulminating about 'big oil' the greens should have been focusing on 'big crypto'.
https://newatlas.com/technology/ethereum-merge/

V8

It's an interesting point.

They say the same about Bitcoin (using insane amounts of energy) and the one might expect the rises in electricity prices to affect the viability of the Bitcoin miners. But I also gather some of them are stealing their electricity, or generating their own power rather than buying it retail...

Mike4 wrote:...I also gather some of them are ...generating their own power rather than buying it retail...

Perhaps they're towing a water turbine behind their canal boat

V8

No matter what they say i think 2023 will be the year of ETH

investisland wrote:No matter what they say i think 2023 will be the year of ETH

As this is your first post here we should give you some leeway - so based on what analysis have you come to this conclusion?

T7

terminal7 wrote:

investisland wrote:No matter what they say i think 2023 will be the year of ETH

As this is your first post here we should give you some leeway - so based on what analysis have you come to this conclusion?

T7

One month on - nothing.

T7

etherium switched from proof of work to proof of stake to validate their blockchain last autumn, educing their energy consumption by perhaps as much as 99%. The fact that it took them so long, and the crypto enthusiasts here never care that Bitcoin is still wasting energy, suggests their community don't actually care about the environment.

JohnB wrote:etherium switched from proof of work to proof of stake to validate their blockchain last autumn, educing their energy consumption by perhaps as much as 99%. The fact that it took them so long, and the crypto enthusiasts here never care that Bitcoin is still wasting energy, suggests their community don't actually care about the environment.

Alternatively, it shows that the "crypto enthusiasts" (in this case Eth) care more about "the environment" than they do about security.

https://www.businessinsider.com/persona ... ?r=US&IR=T

Proof of work has the advantage of making it very expensive to attack a cryptocurrency's network, yet it comes at a growing environmental cost. While proof of stake avoids the massive energy consumption of proof of work, it hasn't been proven to be as secure and stable as proof of work at scale.

I would note that the Etherium network has been attacked very successfully by a certain government.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rosemariem ... e53056584c

There are I'm sure many who feel that attack right and proper. However, it does with certainty prove the lack of security inherent in having validators in a proof of stake system who can be pressured.

Ps, we could save a lot of energy, money and resources by not having an Army, Navy or making munitions. Those things are not productive, but many feel that the waste is preferable to the alternative. Likewise, some feel the waste in the proof of work system worth accepting.

Ps, we could save a lot of energy, money and resources by not having an Army, Navy or making munitions. Those things are not productive, but many feel that the waste is preferable to the alternative. Likewise, some feel the waste in the proof of work system worth accepting.

But if bitcoin ceased to exist, what would the consequences be? If we ceased having an army etc. the consequences would be an increased risk of invasion from a foreign power. Armies currently have greater perceived utility than bitcoin.

ignotus20 wrote:

Ps, we could save a lot of energy, money and resources by not having an Army, Navy or making munitions. Those things are not productive, but many feel that the waste is preferable to the alternative. Likewise, some feel the waste in the proof of work system worth accepting.

But if bitcoin ceased to exist, what would the consequences be? If we ceased having an army etc. the consequences would be an increased risk of invasion from a foreign power. Armies currently have greater perceived utility than bitcoin.

The consequences of not having an armed forces depend upon others willingness to take advantage of the fact.
The consequences of not defending a currency are also well known. Counterfeit currency has been used as a weapon in the past. Operation Bernhard.
The consequences of not being able to trust "money" are also historically documented.

Your point is based upon the concept that bitcoin is either not money or not one that you use. Something like arguing that XYZ country should abandon it's armed forces either because you don't live there or that the land and citizens should belong to another country.

Were this thread actually about bitcoin (hint, check the title) we might discus bitcoin, but IT ISN'T.

This thread is about Ethereum, not bitcoin, and its move from proof of work to proof of state. The consequences of which is that well known individuals or groups "Validate" (authorize) or even reverse transactions. Do you argue that there are no consequences for those who use Etherium in this move? Or that such validators can't be made to toe a line? Evidence would seem to show otherwise.

As for relative utility, there is something in what you say, at least in this country. All other countries?

The UN used USDC to provide aid to Ukrainian refugees.

There are also some very repressive regimes out there.
I.E. the International Commission on Eritrean Refugees, now provides bitcoin education to refugee communities across East Africa.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/faridanabo ... 1904a17636

So to answer your question, if such crypto ceased to exist the world would be a LOT harder for such people.

This is the sort of reason that bitcoin may be of value to some.
https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/08/08/t ... -restricts

This thread is about Ethereum, not bitcoin, and its move from proof of work to proof of state.

I take it you mean 'stake'?

The issue is that bitcoin has no intrinsic value. It's like an out of the money option with no expiration date. It's not really a currency either (in any modern or conventional sense of the term). It's a digital asset with 100% extrinsic value. There's nothing wrong with zero-intrinsic value assets, but if the cost to generate them is high in terms of environmental impact (which it inarguably is for bitcoin) then people question its utility and why it is allowed to continue to exist. This hasn't been adequately addressed by the bitcoin community. What happens is they present strawman arguments and attempt to deflect attention away from the massive energy consumption required to validate transactions using the current approach to proof of work.

Ethereum has moved to proof of stake because it is fundamentally a tech platform for distributed trustless applications. Its value derives from adoption (like most technologies). Proof of stake removes some of the negative PR associations with bitcoin and also reduces gas (transaction fees). If it is more widely adopted and poses less of an environmental problem than bitcoin, then when the likely forthcoming regulation of crypto in the US and EU occurs, my guess is that the Ethereum foundation hope they might be spared.

Bitcoin seems to be something of a libertarian ideological experiment with an identity crisis. The currency aspect has clearly failed, apart from a few obscure edge cases. The current angle appears to be that BTC is some kind of 'digital gold', but I would suggest that 14 years isn't really enough time for that idea to have been properly tested (and when we have waited long enough to find out either way, no one alive today will be around).

The bitcoin approach to proof of work was an interesting intellectual experiment not entirely without merit (and I still hold some BTC I acquired in 2015) but it is a flawed concept. Someone needs to go away and come up with 'proof of useful work', not just 'proof of work'. Ethereum turning down the thermostat is them realising the reality of what they have created - a tech platform which only has longevity if people continue to use it.