Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bitcoin discussion and news

camouflage said:
Internet of things is another one. People talk about their fridges using the internet, I mean think of the bandwidth on that?
Click to expand...

Internet-enabled fridges are a great example of a solution in search of a problem, when it comes to the Internet of Things. Not many people in the real world talk with excitement about internet fridges, it was just something a few people came up with when desperately searching for use cases for networked appliances.

In any case its a poor example to make that point because the energy the fridge uses in being a fridge is going to dwarf the network side of hooking the fridge up. Plus one of the theoretically practical uses for network-enabled appliances like fridges that have been touted in recent years is actually to do with managing energy demand - eg the idea that fridges up and down the land can be made aware of the current energy demand on the network, and try to spread out their most energy-intensive moments to fill in the gaps. Not sure how well it will actually work but this stuff might have potential depending on what sort of energy grid we end up with.
 
So are we eventually going to get to a point where mining 1 block will cost more in energy they then the value of the 12.5 bitcoins received. ?
 
ffsear said:
So are we eventually going to get to a point where mining 1 block will cost more in energy they then the value of the 12.5 bitcoins received. ?
Click to expand...
It's entirely possible, because the price is based on something vaguely resembling socio-economics but the energy cost is based on physics.

But it's not just about mining, it's about transactions.
 
The transaction level - on the primary blockchain layer, should start fairly constant, but with small gains due to greater efficiency within the block (segwit does this). The whole upcoming fork, and the previous bitcoin cash fork are all about either trying to scale on chain, or believing it impossible and having the blockchain as just the top settlement layer.

As for mining difficulty and cost, I think (but am not sure) that the algorithm adjusts to make it easier if miners stop mining.
 
Idaho said:
There's your solution to high fees and the environmental problems of bitcoin.
Click to expand...

Higher fees and the energy costs alone seem to indicate that Bitcoin is headed to be a settlement layer rather than coffee-money imo, some people have a problem with that but considering things like energy demand, I don't think micro-transactions can be delivered via anything other than L2. Coffee vs Pensions init.

ffsear said:
So are we eventually going to get to a point where mining 1 block will cost more in energy they then the value of the 12.5 bitcoins received. ?
Click to expand...

Not really, the cost in energy governs the price at which miners who have to pay the energy companies for the energy (with the usual capitalist tunnel-vision discount re the environment) are willing to sell their coins. There's some debate as to whether price follows hash-power or hash-power follows price, but nobody is going to sell a bitcoin for less than it costed them to make said bitcoin. Hash power can go down as well as up by the way, but surely overall sunk-costs make the price sticky.
 
Last edited:
I for one have serious reservations about what fluid has made these coins sticky. Stay tuned for my white paper, tentatively titled 'the energy implications of trader jizz'.
 
Idaho said:
The transaction level - on the primary blockchain layer, should start fairly constant, but with small gains due to greater efficiency within the block (segwit does this). The whole upcoming fork, and the previous bitcoin cash fork are all about either trying to scale on chain, or believing it impossible and having the blockchain as just the top settlement layer.

As for mining difficulty and cost, I think (but am not sure) that the algorithm adjusts to make it easier if miners stop mining.
Click to expand...

Indeed yes, but the mechanism risks dropping miners into a situation where the coins aren't worth the opportunity cost waiting for difficulty to adjust, at which point they just switch to mining another more profitable coin, and leave slow slow transaction times for users... if utility of bitcoin is hit enough as a result then the price of the coin could fall and things enter a terminal cycle downwards. I think this is unlikely to happen though... it's definitly a good time to look with worry about where the Bitcoinstein Monster might be heading because sneery derision ain't gonna kill off cyberneticaly enhanced Fear and Greed any time soon and the window might be closing on an eco-sensitive re-design. Possibly be the basis of the next big bitcoin debate after this upcoming fork (PoW vs PoS for example...)
 
elbows said:
Internet-enabled fridges are a great example of a solution in search of a problem, when it comes to the Internet of Things. Not many people in the real world talk with excitement about internet fridges, it was just something a few people came up with when desperately searching for use cases for networked appliances.

In any case its a poor example to make that point because the energy the fridge uses in being a fridge is going to dwarf the network side of hooking the fridge up. Plus one of the theoretically practical uses for network-enabled appliances like fridges that have been touted in recent years is actually to do with managing energy demand - eg the idea that fridges up and down the land can be made aware of the current energy demand on the network, and try to spread out their most energy-intensive moments to fill in the gaps. Not sure how well it will actually work but this stuff might have potential depending on what sort of energy grid we end up with.
Click to expand...

Fridges were just the first example that sprang to mind, but all sorts are possible, door-locks using pass-keys the user stores in the cloud, drones etc that wait in power-nests when not in use before flying off to do the fuckloads of ideas we have in regards to possible uses of drones. The communications infrastructure to fascilitate all this cleverness will probably make efficiency gains merely a gateway into larger scales of consumption over all. Maybe a revolution in electronics will save us so we can stop ramming electrons down transistors or whatever in the sort of brutish wasteful way we do now just to switch states from On to Off.
 
Idaho said:
Mining *is* transaction processing.
Click to expand...
From a technical/implementation perspective, yes. But energy issues are about more than the ease of generating coins, it's about the ongoing utility of the thing as currency. Away from the implementation of bitcoin, minting and spending have nothing directly to do with each other.

If it really does adjust to facilitate transactions when mining diminishes, then this is less of an issue, but I don't know either way.
 
camouflage said:
Indeed yes, but the mechanism risks dropping miners into a situation where the coins aren't worth the opportunity cost waiting for difficulty to adjust, at which point they just switch to mining another more profitable coin, and leave slow slow transaction times for users... if utility of bitcoin is hit enough as a result then the price of the coin could fall and things enter a terminal cycle downwards. I think this is unlikely to happen though... it's definitly a good time to look with worry about where the Bitcoinstein Monster might be heading because sneery derision ain't gonna kill off cyberneticaly enhanced Fear and Greed any time soon and the window might be closing on an eco-sensitive re-design. Possibly be the basis of the next big bitcoin debate after this upcoming fork (PoW vs PoS for example...)
Click to expand...
When bitcoin started, it was just a novel idea. No one took it seriously or ever thought it would be worth anything. It took a few years until it bubbled up to $30, which at the time seemed ridiculous - and it soon crashed down to pennies (this was an exchange hack that burst the bubble).

Likewise I don't think the energy requirement was much considered. The assumption was that something better than pow would be used eventually.

One of the original satoshis - nick szabo - said in response to the environmental impact that crypto has the ability to switch to a low power model, whereas traditional finance does not. I doubt many here will find that a satisfactory argument.
 
mauvais said:
From a technical/implementation perspective, yes. But energy issues are about more than the ease of generating coins, it's about the ongoing utility of the thing as currency. Away from the implementation of bitcoin, minting and spending have nothing directly to do with each other.
Click to expand...
The decentralised model requires someone to process transactions, and be rewarded for doing so. Anyone can do it. You could install a piece of software (or even write it yourself from open source code) and get mining (processing transactions and trying to be the first to sign the transaction block with a particular hash digest). Of course you would be more likely to win the lottery than get a block reward on a normal PC.

But because it's an open field, that it is "permissionless", malicious actors can attempt to disrupt. However with pow, it's harder for them to hack than to mine... So they may as well mine. Turns poachers into gamekeepers.
 
Idaho said:
When bitcoin started, it was just a novel idea. No one took it seriously or ever thought it would be worth anything. It took a few years until it bubbled up to $30, which at the time seemed ridiculous - and it soon crashed down to pennies (this was an exchange hack that burst the bubble).

Likewise I don't think the energy requirement was much considered. The assumption was that something better than pow would be used eventually.

One of the original satoshis - nick szabo - said in response to the environmental impact that crypto has the ability to switch to a low power model, whereas traditional finance does not. I doubt many here will find that a satisfactory argument.
Click to expand...

To be fair, let's believe it when we see it. The main blockers there would be political. See what a fuss just changing the block-size has lead to, although to be fair that was a political matter too. the problem with the upcoming fork isn't so much about increasing the blocksize at it is how the decision was made to do so in this way (select few behind closed-doors, corporate interests, no transparency, no BIP etc).

If the Core project were to take the energy-use bull by the horns, that could probably work. but then it's the usual rear-guard action that 'progressives' have to fight against entrenched interests (miner combines that've spent millions building data-centres based on the current PoW etc).

eta: Larger blocksizes should be resisted in my opinion, larger blocksize makes mining far more capital intensive and accelerates the process of centralization (which is as inevitable as converging lines when looking up at tall buildings imo). To scale, block sizes will have to increase, but this also means worsening the energy load of the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
I don't think this latest fork is the last attempt at a power grab by the miners, but it will be for a while. They are going to be pretty chastened by a second failure (an expensive one for them).

I do genuinely believe that core are working on pow alternatives. But it takes time, and it has to be secure.

Did you look at that iota tangle thing?
 
Idaho said:
I don't think this latest fork is the last attempt at a power grab by the miners, but it will be for a while. They are going to be pretty chastened by a second failure (an expensive one for them).

I do genuinely believe that core are working on pow alternatives. But it takes time, and it has to be secure.

Did you look at that iota tangle thing?
Click to expand...

Nope, what's that then?
 
Idaho said:
The decentralised model requires someone to process transactions, and be rewarded for doing so. Anyone can do it. You could install a piece of software (or even write it yourself from open source code) and get mining (processing transactions and trying to be the first to sign the transaction block with a particular hash digest). Of course you would be more likely to win the lottery than get a block reward on a normal PC.
Click to expand...
I know. But someone wanting to utilise existing value has no sympathy for the problems of people trying to generate it, beyond the fact that they are necessary. Expensive transactions are problems for the users and the speculators and therefore the whole thing, not just the miners.
 
mauvais said:
I know. But someone wanting to utilise existing value has no sympathy for the problems of people trying to generate it, beyond the fact that they are necessary. Expensive transactions are problems for the users and the speculators and therefore the whole thing, not just the miners.
Click to expand...

Heh, a general point this, but if "Expensiveness" is involved, then axiomatically it's not a problem for everyone. Depends what side of the expense you sit on really.
 
Idaho said:
0.1% of global power is the straw that breaks the camel's back?

I completely agree that pow is ridiculously wasteful. And it must be fixed. But it's a thousandth of output, and effort is being made to make it more sustainable. I get the suspicion that people who don't like the idea of crypto are delighted to hang their irritation on something concrete.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Previous criticisms of the libertwat funny-money variety failed to explain the continuing development of the space. First they laugh, then they fight. Eventually they'll all be using crypto too, as begrudgingly as me when I brought a shirt from Primark yesterday, but all the same- "join" will complete the set.

Just like with being critical of but nonetheless living in capitalism, it's best to get to at least understand the system in play. It's not going away just coz you don't understand why it wields any power at all. Some people in this thread and Jamie Dimon too.
 
This assumption that those who are critical never bothered to find out how the system works is lazy bullshit.

Nor does a focus on libertwat funny-money fail to explain the continuing development of the space - we have a list of shitty reasons why this stuff continues to grow that is not at all incompatible with taking the piss out of parasites.
 
elbows said:
This assumption that those who are critical never bothered to find out how the system works is lazy bullshit.

Nor does a focus on libertwat funny-money fail to explain the continuing development of the space - we have a list of shitty reasons why this stuff continues to grow that is not at all incompatible with taking the piss out of parasites.
Click to expand...

You talking about capitalism or....?

I don't mean everyone whose critical of bitcoin never bothered to look into it properly, I don't care for newbies tone for example, but there's no doubt newbies given it some proper thought at least as have others. But there's still a much bigger sense of people who were definitely vocal on the Left back in the 70's and 80's for example now turn up just to sneer and talk shite without bringing anything of value to the discussion whatsoever. Plus putting a lot of effort into giving the impression that people who have looked into crypto or found the topic interesting in any way are therefore scammers and pumpers.
 
so what the split in bitcoin useage between a) intelligent eager young gunslingers looking to change the world for the better and b) carpetbagger shit ?
 
Idaho said:
IOTA - Next Generation Blockchain
Click to expand...

I dunno, I've been posting on the thread so far as if I'm all keen and into crypto still but to be honest my eyes glaze over when discussing new crypto ideas now. After a while they all sort of sound the same and blur into one despite the new revolutionary "now for the first time we can"-iness of them all. I hadn't even noticed the ICO explosion that took so many peoples money, possibly because those are also promoted with the same general "shinny-new-way-of"-iness as the thousands of alts out there. Ever watched the comedy Silicon Valley? there's a bit where they take the piss out of how all IT tech conferences sound the same, like in those adverts where everything is sunny and optimistic and care-free and thinks-different etc. In ten years we'll see where we are with what the likes of Iota says on the tin. Bitcoins particular trick has been in it's relative simplicity, just being a ledger- UNIX principal really, do one simple thing and do it very well, plus first mover.

stopping here because i suspect i'm in a post-lunch sugar rush and might be babbling.
 
camouflage said:
Probably best not to get too high up on that horse, it would be insightful indeed to examine the energy footprint of a whole range of clever new internet things. Amazons vast logistics machine, twitter, wiki, Netflix,... the internet is pretty aggressive in the way it develops anything that turns out to have legs. And let's not pretend that for the most part the naysayers of this technology have had only banging on about thin-air to say about it for ages. I found it frustrating actually, I wouldn't call myself a bitcoin evangelist as I've always been interested to talk about the various issues around it but it's only now after years that people are starting to talk about precisely the kind of stuff we should have been discussing all this time around crypto other than the usual dismissive "pretend nonesense internet money". Well now, turns out this pretend nonsense internet money is quite capable of taking serious bites out of the planet... does the technology and it's various implications pregnant with future-shock/horror/potential finally deserve a more serious and deeper level of discussion now... or will we just go back to waving it off as of interest only to deluded libertarian techno-wankers and whistle on? Do what you want really, but we might get further with less ego to drag along the way. who knows what else might need awareness that we still don't know about or haven't yet thought of because it's taken the smug-dismissal brigade so long to get over that first initial step?

I mean it's as if with the development of the first prototype nuclear power-station for energy people just dismissed the whole subject of nuclear power with "what's wrong with coal?" or "boiling water with radioactive decay to push dynamos thus generating electricity? Nonesense, Coal burner works fine." Maybe so but what will you bring to the conversation come a Three Mile Island, something about soot? Thanks, glad to see our best minds on the case.

Powerful new technologies deserve more than dismissal and than haughty outrage that one lacked the imagination or the interest to take the matter seriously in the past, almost accusingly of those that did like they've only been interested all this time because they're all snake-oil tossers. Jeesh.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Nuclear fission has a hilariously high energy density compared to coal. I've yet to hear of any comparable advantages for cryptocurrency over fiat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Protag
Israel-Iran conflicts - news and discussion
6 7 8 9 10
Replies
277
Views
15K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
PR1Berske
Hamas/Israel conflict: news and discussion
519 520 521 522 523
Replies
16K
Views
676K
tony.c
tony.c
WhyLikeThis
Mpox - news and discussion
9 10 11 12 13
Replies
387
Views
22K
Cerv
C
emanymton
Good news! Silvio Berlusconi dead
Replies
16
Views
1K
gentlegreen
gentlegreen
Yuwipi Woman
The Good News Thread
Replies
5
Views
891
platinumsage
platinumsage
Back
Top Bottom