this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
987 points (97.1% liked)

Technology

58142 readers
4319 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

you seem to understand that the protocol can function without the massive power use but you seem to want to blame the protocol for the power use.

at this point, we have to agree to disagree.

have a nice day

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

the protocol can function without the massive power use

At scale no, it can't and that'll never be the case because at any given time, someone will be willing to put more energy (work) into it to gain an advantage - so as long as there's demand for that coin, PoW will always demand huge amounts of energy.

And yes, I do blame the consensus protocol because ultimately that's the culprit of causing this incentive to waste energy and targeting miners or any other actors is an utter waste of time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

>At scale

what does that mean?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

meaning PoW is not such a problem when applied to create consensus in local or niche blockchains as the difficulty (and energy consumption) is orders of magnitude lower. For widely used coins it's a terrible choice.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

PoW isn't a problem at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

> at any given time, someone will be willing to put more energy (work) into it to gain an advantage

that's not a problem with the protocol. that's a problem with people. that's like saying that houses are a problem because people rent them to exploit the working class. the problem isn't the house, it's the people who try to buy all the houses.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I never said there's a problem with the protocol - that's indeed, working as intended. There IS a problem of using the protocol (at scale) though, because it creates this unsustainable environment.

As another comment put it: PoW is the coal burning of this era.

Using it for your bbq is no big deal. Using it to generate energy for half the world is awful.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

>There IS a problem of using the protocol (at scale) though, because it creates this
unsustainable environment.

this isn't true. the protocol is still functioning fine. the problem is how people are using the protocol.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

And there's no way to use it so that it doesn't consume huge amounts of energy because of greed and because of how computers work.

So very much a problem of using PoW.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

you can certainly use it: using the protocol to transact doesn't contribute meaningfully to power consumption. power consumption is almost entirely in the mining.