Development for Bitcoin to reduce CO2 footprint

[bettercrypto]

Old subject...

Pos was not tested in a big network such as bitcoin. Not even ethereum tried it yet. And bitcoin must be more conservative, as a change in the algorithm could cause lots of unexpected problems. Let other shitcoins try first...

Peer coin and other cryptocurrencies which tried are very small and barely used..

Also, pow is working fine. Why people care so much about bitcoin energy consumption to secure the network?

How much does the whole banking system consumes? How much energy does christimas lights worldwide consume?
Bitcoin energy consumption is necessary, as it keeps the network safe and secure against attacks. We should focus in reducing energy costs in less important activities, such as christimas or old lamps with high energy consumption

The most common thing that consumes energy is light. If we can control our consumable material as well as improper use of lights or anything produced by energy. We can preserve energy. We don't need to blame bitcoin for being a consumable energy specially through mining because it is really helpful for us. If you are fan of digital currency, you will appreciate bitcoin. We can use renewable energy or we can lessen our consumable materials but do not ever blame crypto specially bitcoin.

[konfuzius5278]

Some standart argues for POW hardliners I like to say something in the beginning:
1) We can use green power for mining
Green power is an illusion. Even windmills or dams pollute the enviroment

NO!

There is no CO2 pollution from wind, hydro ,geothermal ,solar, tidal and even nuclear reactors. Do you research before posting such BS.

The only way to reduce BTC's CO2 pollution is by using green energy sources

If you are referring to CO2  " cost" to manufacture the equipment , it is very small compared to energy these sources are giving , thus there is no point of pointing out.

Did you read my arguement why also green power makes pollution. I explained already.

Edit: How many windmills you need to use Bitcoin?

[konfuzius5278]

Old subject...

Pos was not tested in a big network such as bitcoin. Not even ethereum tried it yet. And bitcoin must be more conservative, as a change in the algorithm could cause lots of unexpected problems. Let other shitcoins try first...

Peer coin and other cryptocurrencies which tried are very small and barely used..

Also, pow is working fine. Why people care so much about bitcoin energy consumption to secure the network?

How much does the whole banking system consumes? How much energy does christimas lights worldwide consume?
Bitcoin energy consumption is necessary, as it keeps the network safe and secure against attacks. We should focus in reducing energy costs in less important activities, such as christimas or old lamps with high energy consumption

The most common thing that consumes energy is light. If we can control our consumable material as well as improper use of lights or anything produced by energy. We can preserve energy. We don't need to blame bitcoin for being a consumable energy specially through mining because it is really helpful for us. If you are fan of digital currency, you will appreciate bitcoin. We can use renewable energy or we can lessen our consumable materials but do not ever blame crypto specially bitcoin.

No arguement pointing on others
And with light: we uses eco lamp not the old one making heat with 80% of the energy  

[prehisto]

Some standart argues for POW hardliners I like to say something in the beginning:
1) We can use green power for mining
Green power is an illusion. Even windmills or dams pollute the enviroment

Did you read my arguement why also green power makes pollution. I explained already.

Edit: How many windmills you need to use Bitcoin?

You are saying that Germany is cutting down forests to erect windmills. It hard to believe because windmills usually are much taller than trees and even if it is , problem is in the government not in tech itself. In our country windmills are built in the right regions which are clear landscapes. Germany has a coastline and sea, they can easily do it properly if they want to.

Damns do change the landscape but thats not the point, they are not causing pollution, it is not the same thing.

[konfuzius5278]

Use google translator to proof:
https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/stopp-der-zerstoerung-des-reinhardswaldes-in-hessen-durch-windkraftplaene-von-gruenen-und-cdu

The green politicians want that 2% are made by wind energeny, so also in forrest.

And northern germany is full of windmills you can come here and see. So much that people demonstrate against more windmill

But you also need big power lines from north to south which pollute the enviroment either.

When you build i the sea, fish are directed wrong:
https://www.nabu.de/natur-und-landschaft/meere/offshore-windparks/index.html (also in german)

Its not so easy with green power. Germany tries hard but there are big obstacles

[HeRetiK]

More efficient miners only lead to an increase in hashrate, not to a decrease in power consumption. That is, if for example the cost of running mining hardware just got cut in half, a mining operation will simply double their hardware in an attempt to double their profits.

not exactly true.
october 2018 proved the opposite of your assumptions.

[...]

Only if you ignore that the drop in hashrate was preceded by almost a year of bear market. That the hashrate would plateau and then drop until the market recovers is hardly a surprise.

I'm not saying that your theory doesn't have its merit, but it also doesn't quite hold when looking at the surrounding factors.

Additional point is in this CO2 consumtion on HASH rate, even the I dont know how much Bitcoin Full node are not included.

Power consumption of non-mining full node should be negligible as the computational requirement of full nodes does not exceed most consumer PCs [1] and there are currently only about 10,000 public nodes [2] on the network.

[1] https://bitcoin.org/en/full-node#minimum-requirements
[2] https://bitnodes.earn.com/

And thats one of the main points to understand. With the right consensus algo you can running coin with only this full nodes.

Oh definitely. But which consensus algorithm would that be, that's the Gretchenfrage, isn't it? So far attempts at answering this question have been less than impressive.

Its not so easy with green power. Germany tries hard but there are big obstacles

Definitely not easy, but necessary. I'm a bit surprised though about the deforestation issue, most windmills I saw in Germany are in open fields (ie. crop areas).

In general most of Europe appears to be doing well on the renewable energy front anyway, unlike some of the other major economic forces out there (I'm looking at you U S of A, you guys would have a lot of space for photovoltaics and wind power; just sayin').

[Ryan Dugan]

It's all relative. Do you know how much energy we use for everyday living. In relation to the big picture mining uses hardly any electricity. I wonder how much a bank uses?
You say dams and windmills also pollute the environment? How?

People dont understand. BItcoin is until now not little part of banks. I dont like them but Bitcoin until now dont give credit, dont sell company shares, even not work as payment system. Its only a investment

Pollution of those things is easy: Come to germany and see that windmills are even build in forest, where 100.000 square meters each windmill trees are taken down.
And that damns change the whole landscape is also known

Stop lying please. I is bitcoin weekly. You going to sit and type to me that what im looking at right now doesn't exist? So my new hard drive my new steam games and my new sound system equipment just popped out and landed in on my living room?

Sorry but I refuse to believe a country as advanced as Germany don't take bitcoins. Also you can replace the trees. Which tree you take down you plant two more. Here they use coal power and makes the sky turn black so please don't tell me a windmill pollutes.

[konfuzius5278]

It's all relative. Do you know how much energy we use for everyday living. In relation to the big picture mining uses hardly any electricity. I wonder how much a bank uses?
You say dams and windmills also pollute the environment? How?

People dont understand. BItcoin is until now not little part of banks. I dont like them but Bitcoin until now dont give credit, dont sell company shares, even not work as payment system. Its only a investment

Pollution of those things is easy: Come to germany and see that windmills are even build in forest, where 100.000 square meters each windmill trees are taken down.
And that damns change the whole landscape is also known

Stop lying please. I is bitcoin weekly. You going to sit and type to me that what im looking at right now doesn't exist? So my new hard drive my new steam games and my new sound system equipment just popped out and landed in on my living room?

Sorry but I refuse to believe a country as advanced as Germany don't take bitcoins. Also you can replace the trees. Which tree you take down you plant two more. Here they use coal power and makes the sky turn black so please don't tell me a windmill pollutes.

You name me a liar?! Thats outrageous!!! How you can pay DIRECT with Bitcoin at any place without LN or company's credit the payment before use Bitcoin. You want to wait 20 min MINIMUM at Starbucks?

And I dont say coal is better. But the point is saving energy not produce green one. Every windmill you have to backup with other power. What you do if there is no wind? No Bitcoin Mining  

[konfuzius5278]

Here german mass media from today:
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/bitcoin-energie-strom-treibhausgase-emissionen-1.4484010

Use google translator, they claim again about the footprint. By the why same article in 3 big german newspapars.

In these days, doing same as always dont work.

[jademaxsuy]

Yes it is ideal to mine using solar power panel cells but the problem is that solar panel is expensive and may be having trouble when it comes to operation because it needs sunlight and sometimes a cool area to be proficient when it stores energy.

Yes, I do agree that mining using solar power/panel cells definitely will help to reduce CO2 as it will slowly eradicate the use of fuel to generate current and at the same time generates CO2.

[prehisto]

Use google translator to proof:
https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/stopp-der-zerstoerung-des-reinhardswaldes-in-hessen-durch-windkraftplaene-von-gruenen-und-cdu

The green politicians want that 2% are made by wind energeny, so also in forrest.

And northern germany is full of windmills you can come here and see. So much that people demonstrate against more windmill

But you also need big power lines from north to south which pollute the enviroment either.

When you build i the sea, fish are directed wrong:
https://www.nabu.de/natur-und-landschaft/meere/offshore-windparks/index.html (also in german)

Its not so easy with green power. Germany tries hard but there are big obstacles

Okay, it seems that the issue of cutting down tries to build wind turbines is a isolated issue and that is something that governing bodies have to deal with it. If the location is not suited for the windmills then build it at different spots and transfer the electricity to the needed areas.

Building windmills at different spots does not increase electric line building in such amount that it should be concern.


The question of " pollution" of electric lines is something else . The electric lines is needed in anyway you look at it, energy will never be generated locally, energy also is transferred beyond the borders of countries in order to meat the demand of daylight change.

Here german mass media from today:
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/bitcoin-energie-strom-treibhausgase-emissionen-1.4484010

Ok, they calculated the emissions. The calculation was done with certain assumption like that some amount of energy generates some amount of CO2. Now this amount depends on the energy generation type. Types can be coal, wind, solar and others.
To do an approximation of BItcoins impact, first we would need to know what type of energy is used to power btc farms. .
 

[franky1]

More efficient miners only lead to an increase in hashrate, not to a decrease in power consumption. That is, if for example the cost of running mining hardware just got cut in half, a mining operation will simply double their hardware in an attempt to double their profits.

not exactly true.
october 2018 proved the opposite of your assumptions.

[...]

Only if you ignore that the drop in hashrate was preceded by almost a year of bear market. That the hashrate would plateau and then drop until the market recovers is hardly a surprise.

I'm not saying that your theory doesn't have its merit, but it also doesn't quite hold when looking at the surrounding factors.

not ignoring anything. quite the opposite.
the BOTTOMLINE VALUE and hashrate cost of ALL2018 was at or below ~$5800
so while the speculative FOMO layer ontop yo-yo's above $5800 and went to $20k and back down again. this didnt affect the hashrates.
the only big noticable hashrate event of 2018 was in october when next gens replaced old gens.. which due to the rate of the swap then reacted in a change in profitability that allowed the price to go down in november

[franky1]

seems most have realised bitcoin is not as bad as people thought. so now discussions moved onto how certain power plants themselves are the nasty polluters

as for people saying that renewables are.
well thats just the construction.
yes the concrete of dams, use alot of concrete mixing trucks=diesel
yes solar uses alot of materials to make a solar panel
yes wind turbines uses alot of materials to make them

but after the initial investment/construction, the utility they produce compared to just burning coal on a daily bases. shows that initial construction vs ongoing burn still makes renewable better by many thousand folds

EG
dams vs coal
the concrete of dams is comparable to the hole left from digging coal... (truck fuel waste.. change of landscape)
but coal then also produces tonnes of CO2 from burning coal. which dams dont.
but coal runs out and a new quarry gets dug=more holes in landscape. yet a dam just continues producing using a single dam

[konfuzius5278]

seems most have realised bitcoin is not as bad as people thought. so now discussions moved onto how certain power plants themselves are the nasty polluters

as for people saying that renewables are.
well thats just the construction.
yes the concrete of dams, use alot of concrete mixing trucks=diesel
yes solar uses alot of materials to make a solar panel
yes wind turbines uses alot of materials to make them

but after the initial investment/construction, the utility they produce compared to just burning coal on a daily bases. shows that initial construction vs ongoing burn still makes renewable better by many thousand folds

EG
dams vs coal
the concrete of dams is comparable to the hole left from digging coal... (truck fuel waste.. change of landscape)
but coal then also produces tonnes of CO2 from burning coal. which dams dont.
but coal runs out and a new quarry gets dug=more holes in landscape. yet a dam just continues producing using a single dam

Read what I say. There are many coins using hardly any Energy for their existance and are not as vulnerable as POW hardliners always try to say. Bitcoin HAS a bad CO2 footprint, and I only try to say that these "green energy ideas" are not as good as all people think.
My inital problem is not solved. Why the DEV of Bitcoin dont work on a stable , energey less consensus system, that solve many scaling problems in same fork ??

[HeRetiK]

Read what I say. There are many coins using hardly any Energy for their existance and are not as vulnerable as POW hardliners always try to say. [...]

Many coins that are hardly used. It's nice to argue about scalability and security when no one uses a coin, in practice the reality usually looks quite different. So far the only "consensus" algorithms that seem to be both scalable and secure without relying on PoW are permissioned ones at which point we're back at square one.

That being said, which of the "many coins that use hardly any energy but are still secure" are you referring to precisely?

[konfuzius5278]

Read what I say. There are many coins using hardly any Energy for their existance and are not as vulnerable as POW hardliners always try to say. [...]

Many coins that are hardly used. It's nice to argue about scalability and security when no one uses a coin, in practice the reality usually looks quite different. So far the only "consensus" algorithms that seem to be both scalable and secure without relying on PoW are permissioned ones at which point we're back at square one.

That being said, which of the "many coins that use hardly any energy but are still secure" are you referring to precisely?

Most people talk of PivX and its fork. I know they have problems with chainsplit and chain stuck of attack. But as fair as I know there were never coins stolen of PivX.

And even my own coin as Nova coin fork is very small and code from years ago but runs stabile without any chainsplit or something like that within 1,5 years. And with a block time of a minute you can even do a payment

So there must be options, that is my idea, to opimize the existing coins code to generate a stable, fast, POS fork.

And Etherum always claimed as example, but ETH has also its contract useability so much more on chain then BTC.

[Twinkledoe]

Old subject...

Pos was not tested in a big network such as bitcoin. Not even ethereum tried it yet. And bitcoin must be more conservative, as a change in the algorithm could cause lots of unexpected problems. Let other shitcoins try first...

Peer coin and other cryptocurrencies which tried are very small and barely used..

Also, pow is working fine. Why people care so much about bitcoin energy consumption to secure the network?

How much does the whole banking system consumes? How much energy does christimas lights worldwide consume?
Bitcoin energy consumption is necessary, as it keeps the network safe and secure against attacks. We should focus in reducing energy costs in less important activities, such as christimas or old lamps with high energy consumption

What more can I say. There are also a large number of industries that consume a lot of energy which are being used abusively and in due course, they are wasting energy for nothing. For instance, if they will integrate blockchain technology within their operations, I am sure they will save a lot more energy, and manpower. Bitcoin energy consumption is not wasted after all, just like you said, it is necessary for the network to keep safe and secure and also keeping the chain alive. So yes, I don't think we are not wasting energy when it comes to bitcoin. There are other industries that should take a look in saving energy consumption.

[IPVPIRL]

Industries are using pollution permits from governments, which means they buy rights of a certain amount of pollution.

Once the hash rate is determined to pass the threshold of creating environmental damage, companies as Bitmain will be asked to pay for this.

There are laws in every country that demand reduction of pollution and protection of the environment.

So to conclude, everything has a limit. If Bitcoin hash power becomes a problem that causes environmental damage, there are means, like the pollution permits, that won't allow it to happen.

And since you turned it into a POW argument, be certain that this would never happen.

[TimeTeller]

Industries are using pollution permits from governments, which means they buy rights of a certain amount of pollution.

Once the hash rate is determined to pass the threshold of creating environmental damage, companies as Bitmain will be asked to pay for this.

There are laws in every country that demand reduction of pollution and protection of the environment.

So to conclude, everything has a limit. If Bitcoin hash power becomes a problem that causes environmental damage, there are means, like the pollution permits, that won't allow it to happen.

And since you turned it into a POW argument, be certain that this would never happen.

Yes, it should be treated like any other industry that is consuming energy.
So bitcoin mining should not be an isolated case, but rather another rising industry that is revolutionizing the digital technology.
And we are already reaping the benefits of blockchain technology at this stage.
And with that being said, the existing laws in terms of environmental concerns should also be applied to crypto mining and not to be addressed as special case.

[Alijiindahaus]

Recently, the network has information that scientists from the University of Munich have revealed how mining affects the environment.  According to their data, the extraction of cryptocurrency emit only carbon dioxide, such as Sri Lanka.  It seems to me that these scientists have nothing to do and therefore I do not invent such nonsense.