|
Title: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: grum2Hall on December 14, 2013, 08:16:14 AM Hi all, first post here, please go easy on me. ;D
Looking at how the combined Bitcoin network hashing rate is around 88600 Petaflops/s (http://bitcoincharts.com/bitcoin/), which is about 300 to 400 times the computing power of the Top 500 super computers combined, don't you think that Bitcoin and other Proof of Work based currencies will have a sudden loss of confidence as soon as the perils of Global Warming start becoming apparent? People are going to look at environmental alternatives, and see that traditional currencies or even some alternative crypto-currencies (such as Peercoin) have near-zero long term effects on the environment and could gravitate towards them... I'm not sure if this has been discussed before on this forum, but could someone please tell me how Bitcoin aims to counter this threat to its long term usability? P.S.: I know that SHA-256 involves enumerable calculations and not floating point ones, but still, even in Terahashs, a hash rate of almost 7000 Terahash/s seems huge considering Bitcoin has not yet taken off completely. Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: tinybike on December 14, 2013, 10:04:26 AM Honestly, I think it's an insane waste of computing power. Even just considering GPUs/ASICs, which are limited to parallelizable computations -- there are a LOT of good scientific applications that people have figured out ways to parallelize. (See, for example, the grid computing project Boinc: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/) Why did the Bitcoin creators pick solving SHA-256 hashes over, for example, SETI@home? SETI@home predates Bitcoin.
Primecoin and its derivatives are at least doing something sort of useful. But still, finding Cunningham chains is about as close to the line of uselessness as you can get without falling over it... Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: Wipeout2097 on December 14, 2013, 10:20:41 AM Honestly, I think it's an insane waste of computing power. Even just considering GPUs/ASICs, which are limited to parallelizable computations -- there are a LOT of good scientific applications that people have figured out ways to parallelize. (See, for example, the grid computing project Boinc: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/) Why did the Bitcoin creators pick solving SHA-256 hashes over, for example, SETI@home? SETI@home predates Bitcoin. Because 1) Boinc projects are not suitable for ProofOfWork (hard to find, easy to validate); 2) Boinc projects were/are centralized; 3) The Bitcoin creators 4 years ago did not anticipate and are not responsible for today's "insane waste of computing power"Primecoin and its derivatives are at least doing something sort of useful. But still, finding Cunningham chains is about as close to the line of uselessness as you can get without falling over it... You should look at Curecoin for such an effort Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: ajax3592 on December 14, 2013, 11:22:48 AM Very much agreed OP! I have the same thoughts, they could have used some other way for mining. Easily $1,000,000s of electricity must be sucked out by mining everyday.
Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: Luceat on December 14, 2013, 11:29:58 AM It's already a big concern for me personally, as an environmental engineer I dislike the idea of supporting an energy wasting network. Because of this I'm just about 20% BTC and 80% alts. Devcoin, Curecoin, Primecoin and new currencies like eMunie and NXTcoin seem like a greener or at least more reasonable solution.
Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: hilariousandco on December 14, 2013, 11:35:04 AM How much electricity does the banking/credit card system use?
Maybe power the computers with solar power or some other form of sustainable energy. Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: infinitelink on December 14, 2013, 11:53:18 AM Honestly, I think it's an insane waste of computing power. Even just considering GPUs/ASICs, which are limited to parallelizable computations -- there are a LOT of good scientific applications that people have figured out ways to parallelize. (See, for example, the grid computing project Boinc: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/) Why did the Bitcoin creators pick solving SHA-256 hashes over, for example, SETI@home? SETI@home predates Bitcoin. Primecoin and its derivatives are at least doing something sort of useful. But still, finding Cunningham chains is about as close to the line of uselessness as you can get without falling over it... Actually, you never know, truly, what an area of mathematics will prove useful for. Do you think anyone ever thought Fibonacci counting a theory about multiplication of rabbits according to his little set of rules would produces series that turns-up throughout nature and describes things well? Who knows if that chain could produce some useful outcome or not. Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: Luceat on December 14, 2013, 12:02:02 PM There is far greater potential in the reduction of energy use and more efficient technologies. The estimated reduction of CO2 emissions by building better insulated houses and using more efficient means of transportation is 8 times larger than the estimated reduction of CO2 emissions achieved by an 100% renewable energy production. Which means: using renewable energy to feed an inefficient system/network is rather stupid.
Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: hedge29 on December 14, 2013, 12:18:08 PM Devcoin, Curecoin, Primecoin and new currencies like eMunie and NXTcoin seem like a greener or at least more reasonable solution. I've heard that all the computers (i.e. energy consumption) involved in running the BTC network is what makes it so immune to an attack. If that is true, then I wonder how do these greener alt coins compare to BTC in terms of security? Do they perhaps have another way to offer the same level of security, or is it necessarily an inverse relationship--a trade-off between security and green-ness? Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: Authentic on December 14, 2013, 12:29:42 PM Several coins have appeared which have another reason to be used (apart of being used as a currency), such as Primecoin.
Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: Sindelar1938 on December 14, 2013, 12:32:54 PM Don't think the existing banking network inefficiencies can claim not to have a crappy carbon footprint
But agree that this is an important point that needs addressing Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: Authentic on December 14, 2013, 12:34:42 PM Don't think the existing banking network inefficiencies can claim not to have a crappy carbon footprint Well, saying that others also have problems doesn't remove our responsability. But I understand what you mean.But agree that this is an important point that needs addressing Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: Luceat on December 14, 2013, 12:42:13 PM Devcoin, Curecoin, Primecoin and new currencies like eMunie and NXTcoin seem like a greener or at least more reasonable solution. I've heard that all the computers (i.e. energy consumption) involved in running the BTC network is what makes it so immune to an attack. If that is true, then I wonder how do these greener alt coins compare to BTC in terms of security? Do they perhaps have another way to offer the same level of security, or is it necessarily an inverse relationship--a trade-off between security and green-ness? Well I'm not entirely sure about Devcoin and Curecoin so I don't really want say anything about them. They need additional security since they basically award you with coins for the computing power you delivered to their partner networks. I haven't heard of someone that found a way to jump between the communication of the blockchain and the network and collect rewards for work he did not do. You're better off asking in the specific threads, my knowledge in IT is in comparison to the standart altcoin user rather low. eMunie and NXTcoin both claim to be "2nd Generation" Cryptocurrencies. On the basic principle of Bitcoin they coded completely new currencies from scratch. Both claim that they're immune to 51% attacks. Overall they both claim to be more secure than Bitcoin, while having some more advantages. Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: pand70 on December 14, 2013, 12:49:01 PM don't you think that Bitcoin and other Proof of Work based currencies will have a sudden loss of confidence as soon as the perils of Global Warming start becoming apparent? You mean the kind of global warming that is just a myth and a marketing trick from companies that have interests in alternative power sources? Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: BlockChainLottery on December 14, 2013, 01:00:39 PM Well, the Bitcoin network does not waste a lot of energy. It is in direct proportion to the security of the network and thus usefull, and inherent to the protocol.
I very much like the analogy described on this site: http://expectedpayoff.com/blog/2013/03/22/bitcoin-and-the-byzantine-generals-problem/ (http://expectedpayoff.com/blog/2013/03/22/bitcoin-and-the-byzantine-generals-problem/) It shows that you must do some kind of work to make sure the network is not flooded with messages. That is the price to pay for having a secure decentralized currency. Centralized currency also have to secure their use in a different way, which is also wasting energy. So essentially it is a trade-off. When you add all the power used by the network it seems a lot, but just look at what it costs to power the LHC. You have to put things in perspective. Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: gertvanjoe on December 14, 2013, 01:07:53 PM Well as long that it pays to fix my car which is polluting the world then I'm good
Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: ajax3592 on December 14, 2013, 03:01:47 PM If someone comes up with something better, we'll switch. Until then, the energy use isn't wasted. How about solar energy powered mining hardware?That is very resourceful in my opinion and will return the ROI of solar panels in just few months. Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: raspcoin on December 14, 2013, 03:43:09 PM If someone comes up with something better, we'll switch. Until then, the energy use isn't wasted. I would say Primecoin's specification is better than that of Bitcoin in almost every way, it is even ten times faster (Litecoin is in-between). However, I think people will not be ready to make the switch until more sites and exchanges accept other cryptocurrencies. Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: raspcoin on December 14, 2013, 03:59:12 PM If someone comes up with something better, we'll switch. Until then, the energy use isn't wasted. I would say Primecoin's specification is better than that of Bitcoin in almost every way, it is even ten times faster (Litecoin is in-between). However, I think people will not be ready to make the switch until more sites and exchanges accept other cryptocurrencies. I just took a look at the Wikipedia article on [[Primecoin]] (which the idiots at Wikipedia are considering deleting), and I'd say Primecoin's specification is worse (less secure) than Bitcoin in almost every way. But hey, that's just my opinion. Out of curiosity, which security aspects of Primecoin do you think are inferior? Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: Luceat on December 14, 2013, 04:10:02 PM If someone comes up with something better, we'll switch. Until then, the energy use isn't wasted. How about solar energy powered mining hardware?That is very resourceful in my opinion and will return the ROI of solar panels in just few months. Solar energy for bitcoin mining makes sense in about the same situations as solar energy for anything else. If you're using solar energy powering mining hardware, that means solar energy that you can't use for something else. Even if you don't use any non-solar energy, it means solar energy that you can't sell to the grid companies thereby making you money and lowering the amount of power the grid companies need to generate. If you want to calculate the ROI of the solar panels, you should be measuring against the cost to have powered that mining hardware using your best alternative to solar energy. If you're connected to the grid, and you don't live in a great location for solar energy (which, incidentally, are probably the worst locations for bitcoin mining in terms of need for cooling), then I'm not sure you're getting much, if any, ROI. If you live in the middle of nowhere, and can get (wireless) Internet but not (wired) electricity, solar power might very well be the way to go. Which brings me back to my initial statement. Makes sense in about the same situations as solar energy for anything else. +1 Photovoltaic is generally a tad overrated. Environmentalists often claim that you go ROI with a photovoltaic system in 15 years (central europe). The calculation often used for this is incredible inaccurate, too many factors aren't included. At this point the only reason to use photovoltaic systems is its portability, otherwise there are technologies with a far bigger potential with which you go ROI in less than 10 years. Well unless you live in a region with more than 2200 kWh/m2 solar energy. Now back to the topic, Bitcoin will have to face critique regarding its power consumption, of this I am sure. It's hard to predict how the users and the media will react to the problems facing Bitcoin once it reaches a certain size. At some point it just gets impractical. As an environmental engineer, who does this job out of conviction (I know we're not really popular ;D) I hope that Bitcoin will get replaced by a more efficient system in the next 3 years. I would miss Bitcoin though Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: grum2Hall on December 14, 2013, 04:55:50 PM If someone comes up with something better, we'll switch. Until then, the energy use isn't wasted. Peercoin, or PPC, which currently primarily uses Proof of Work, but eventually plans to switch completely to Proof of stake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake)), based on coin age, could be well be the way to go, at least environmentally. Since Peercoin will eventually stop relying on mining, and switch over to Proof of Stake which doesn't require any complex computation, this should serve the dual purpose of not affecting the environment, while at the same time, eliminating the threat of a 51% attack. The only concern I have with Peercoin is the transaction fees, which is 0.01 PPC at the moment, no matter how big or small your transaction is. Wouldn't this reduce the liquidity in the system and make it more difficult to make micro-payments? I'm really having a hard time wrapping my head around this... :( Perhaps someone could help me understand why there is a fixed transaction fee at play here? Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: grum2Hall on December 14, 2013, 05:31:08 PM If someone comes up with something better, we'll switch. Until then, the energy use isn't wasted. I would say Primecoin's specification is better than that of Bitcoin in almost every way, it is even ten times faster (Litecoin is in-between). However, I think people will not be ready to make the switch until more sites and exchanges accept other cryptocurrencies. I just took a look at the Wikipedia article on [[Primecoin]] (which the idiots at Wikipedia are considering deleting), and I'd say Primecoin's specification is worse (less secure) than Bitcoin in almost every way. But hey, that's just my opinion. Out of curiosity, which security aspects of Primecoin do you think are inferior? I think Primecoin is less secure than Bitcoin because of its different proof-of-work system (no ASICs, at least not yet), because of its faster block generation time (more orphans), because of its "smoother difficulty adjustment" (easier for an attacker to manipulate the difficulty), and because of its "self-adjusting block reward" (allows an attacker to manipulate the block reward). You make several great points. :) Primecoin's POW is definitely untested in my opinion too. By the way, I'm now arguing on Primecoin's deletion talk page that it should be kept. I don't know how they can even think about deleting it... lol. Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: raspcoin on December 14, 2013, 07:35:33 PM If someone comes up with something better, we'll switch. Until then, the energy use isn't wasted. I would say Primecoin's specification is better than that of Bitcoin in almost every way, it is even ten times faster (Litecoin is in-between). However, I think people will not be ready to make the switch until more sites and exchanges accept other cryptocurrencies. I just took a look at the Wikipedia article on [[Primecoin]] (which the idiots at Wikipedia are considering deleting), and I'd say Primecoin's specification is worse (less secure) than Bitcoin in almost every way. But hey, that's just my opinion. Out of curiosity, which security aspects of Primecoin do you think are inferior? I think Primecoin is less secure than Bitcoin because of its different proof-of-work system (no ASICs, at least not yet), because of its faster block generation time (more orphans), because of its "smoother difficulty adjustment" (easier for an attacker to manipulate the difficulty), and because of its "self-adjusting block reward" (allows an attacker to manipulate the block reward). You make several great points. :) Primecoin's POW is definitely untested in my opinion too. By the way, I'm now arguing on Primecoin's deletion talk page that it should be kept. I don't know how they can even think about deleting it... lol. Agreed on both points. Primecoin must first gain traction in order to be able to prove its security. But that request for deletion on Wikipedia is ridiculous. Title: Re: Environmental concerns of Bitcoin Post by: tinybike on December 14, 2013, 08:04:43 PM Because 1) Boinc projects are not suitable for ProofOfWork (hard to find, easy to validate); 2) Boinc projects were/are centralized; 3) The Bitcoin creators 4 years ago did not anticipate and are not responsible for today's "insane waste of computing power" I don't think 1 and 2 are always true -- for example, take protein folding. It's hard to calculate a protein's ground state, but easy to validate against NMR or crystal structures. It also doesn't need to be centralized; anyone can plug into the Protein Data Bank and get a full list of experimentally solved structures. The Bitcoin creators did not anticipate that Bitcoins would blow up the way they have, but clearly, they knew that they were wasting some computing power, and that the amount would grow if/when Bitcoins became popular. |