• Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Misleading title - the problem is not “crypto”, it’s pretty much all Bitcoin and the people against the change in the consensus mechanism. Out of the top 10 9 coins in market cap, Bitcoin is the only one using proof of work, which demands such high energy requirements.

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        ah yes the 10th place - still, Doge is estimated to use ~1% of the energy Bitcoin uses and it’s been in steady decline since the meme blew up.

        • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          >it’s been in steady decline since the meme blew up.

          it got a pretty big bump from elon a couple years back, but dogecoin is nearly perfect money. it isn’t deflationary, it’s cheap to transact, and the on-ramps are ubiquitous.

        • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          9 months ago

          the entire Bitcoin block chain could be run on the phone I’m using to write this. there is nothing inherent to the protocol that dictates such massive power use.

          and dogecoin merge mines with all the other script coins so how can you even calculate its independent usage?

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            9 months ago

            there is nothing inherent to the protocol that dictates such massive power use.

            Yes there is, massive power use is the entire point of proof-of-work. If Bitcoin blocks could be produced without massive power use then the blockchain’s system of validation would fail and 51% attacks would be trivial.

            • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              the hash rate for the first blocks was achievable with a pentium 3. the protocol functioned then. there is nothing inherent to the protocol that dictates more hashpower is used. a 51% attack is the protocol functioning properly.

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                13
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s because there were just a handful of people mining the first blocks and there was no demand, so the price was basically zero.

                The protocol is meant to promote decentralization, so I have no idea how a 51% attack would be an example of the protocol functioning properly. A 51% attack is a demonstration that the protocol is controlled by a single entity.

              • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                then there’s no reason to believe they got it wrong.

                also they’re vague estimates, even bitcoin has a huge margin for error.

                • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  there is every reason to not believe them. they clearly have a motivation to paint power consumption as worse than is true, and the complexity of extracting the use of dogecoin mining from the rest of the mergedmine is, personally, unfathomable. maybe i’m dumb and there is a simple calculation that can be done, but without evidence of their methodology, i’m not going to believe them, and no one should.

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Isn’t it strange no one gave a shit about this a year and a half ago when the price was lower? It appears everyone’s concern for the environment and energy consumption only increases when the price goes up. Interesting correlation or may be causation.

      • Nilz@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        9 months ago

        Everyone already gave a shit about this a long time ago. It’s also one of the reasons Ethereum switched from proof of work to proof of stake.

        • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          Yes but only when the price was high did anyone care and ethereum switch. Barely a peep for the last 2 and a half years

      • fidodo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        I’ve been hearing about the stupid amount of energy usage for years and years. You just created a straw man that isn’t based on reality.

        • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I’ve been keeping a close eye on the news about crypto and there has been virtually no stories about any crypto for the last 2 years, prior to that when the price was high there were a lot of stories about it which is my point. They only started to come back into circulation about 6 months ago. If you remember otherwise you are wrong.

      • Skua@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        can always just pump up more oil out of the ground.

        No, this is actually exactly the fucking problem

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        You mean proof of work? And I disagree, Ethereum moved from PoW to PoS and gained market cap since then. The high costs are just a consequence of the consensus mechanism in use.

      • adrian783@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        bitcoin has got to be invented by an alien or something so that we would terraform for them…

        • Alex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Probably just a fool thinking free fusion energy was just around the corner

          • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            It’s more that it was originally a theoretical white paper meant to present a potential solution for a very specific problem space. Energy use wasn’t a consideration in the design, because that wasn’t part of what it was meant to address. Likewise, anonymity in the sense of hiding transactions wasn’t part of the design either, besides avoiding centralized banking’s requirement that every “wallet” is associated with a government ID.

            It was a fun toy meant as a proof of concept solution to centralized banking.

            Eventually market speculators saw what the nerds were getting up to, got some ideas, and everything freaking exploded. It wasn’t meant to drive speculative markets.