Will energy consumption be Bitcoins downfall ?

[Rizzrack]

FYI:
In Bitcoin PoW history ,
the Majority Rewrote 6 hours of bitcoin blocks in 2013, proving the majority will move the PoW chain however they deem fit.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448

The economic damage was significant, but fairly small; the only monetary losses that have been reported are the $26,000 USD worth of mining block rewards from the 24 mined blocks of 25 BTC that are now forever lost in the now abandoned chain, as well as a $10,000 double spend against OKPay.

A Doublespend has occurred on the Bitcoin PoW network.  

No Doublespends have ever occurred on the Cardano PoS network.  

From the above, PoW does not seem all that secure.  

FWIW that event you are talking about was not a double spent, it was a database issue. The older software running nodes were using a different database system that had a block limit size. The nodes running the newer software had a different database system without that limit.
It was as if the dependencies forked BTC, not a villain mastermind that performed a double spent...

And now a more elaborate explanation:

0.7 and older nodes use BDB for storing the blockchain databases. It seems this database has a limit on the size of the modification it can make atomically to the database. With the larger blocks of the past days, it seems to have triggered the limit. The result is that 0.7 (by default, it can be tweaked manually) will not accept "too large" blocks (we don't yet know what exactly causes it, but it is very likely caused by many transactions in the block). Specifically, block
000000000000015c50b165fcdd33556f8b44800c5298943ac70b112df480c023 (height=225430) with >1700 transactions.

However. 0.8 (which uses a different database system) has no such limit, and happily accepts the block. As the majority of the hash power was on 0.8, the longest chain ended up using this block, which is not accepted by older nodes.

The solution is to (for now) go back to the old chain, which has block 00000000000001c108384350f74090433e7fcf79a606b8e797f065b130575932 at height 225430.

And regarding BTC mining power usage... creating demand will just increase the development of cheaper alternatives which are also more and more environmental friendly. Doubt anyone will open a coal mine next to a mining hub nowadays...

[1714663943]

1714663943

[1714663943]

1714663943

[1714663943]

1714663943

[1714663943]

1714663943

[1714663943]

1714663943

[TangentC]

FYI:
In Bitcoin PoW history ,
the Majority Rewrote 6 hours of bitcoin blocks in 2013, proving the majority will move the PoW chain however they deem fit.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448

The economic damage was significant, but fairly small; the only monetary losses that have been reported are the $26,000 USD worth of mining block rewards from the 24 mined blocks of 25 BTC that are now forever lost in the now abandoned chain, as well as a $10,000 double spend against OKPay.

A Doublespend has occurred on the Bitcoin PoW network.  

No Doublespends have ever occurred on the Cardano PoS network.  

From the above, PoW does not seem all that secure.  

FWIW that event you are talking about was not a double spent, it was a database issue. The older software running nodes were using a different database system that had a block limit size. The nodes running the newer software had a different database system without that limit.
It was as if the dependencies forked BTC, not a villain mastermind that performed a double spent...

And now a more elaborate explanation:

0.7 and older nodes use BDB for storing the blockchain databases. It seems this database has a limit on the size of the modification it can make atomically to the database. With the larger blocks of the past days, it seems to have triggered the limit. The result is that 0.7 (by default, it can be tweaked manually) will not accept "too large" blocks (we don't yet know what exactly causes it, but it is very likely caused by many transactions in the block). Specifically, block
000000000000015c50b165fcdd33556f8b44800c5298943ac70b112df480c023 (height=225430) with >1700 transactions.

However. 0.8 (which uses a different database system) has no such limit, and happily accepts the block. As the majority of the hash power was on 0.8, the longest chain ended up using this block, which is not accepted by older nodes.

The solution is to (for now) go back to the old chain, which has block 00000000000001c108384350f74090433e7fcf79a606b8e797f065b130575932 at height 225430.

And regarding BTC mining power usage... creating demand will just increase the development of cheaper alternatives which are also more and more environmental friendly. Doubt anyone will open a coal mine next to a mining hub nowadays...

Wow, you really drank the Bitcoiner Cult Kool-aid
if you can't see that someone was watching the rewrite and took advantage of it for a double-spend in bitcoin ,
so whoever did it, made a $10K profit.
Contact the writer of the article, and tell him he does not understand crypto,
oh by the way the writer is Vitalik Buterin , the genius behind ethereum.  

If Bitcoin Proof of Waste does nothing but create new demand, then how do you resign yourself to the fact ,
that instead of just adding Nuclear or new Coal plants, that China rather just kick out the bitcoin miners.
Watch Texas and their new problems with rolling blackouts,
because asking a single state or county to sustain a geometric increase in energy drain, is not going to happen.  

FYI:
Renewable energy sources only increase worldwide ~4% per year,
Bitcoin energy waste can increase 80% in a year.
Source:  https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/bitcoin-energy-consumption-cambridge-study-cryptocurrencies-bitcoin-mining-climate-change-2021-3-1030180485
(That is like adding a new country to the planet every year, while our energy resources are drained, Unsustainable!)
No current source of energy production can keep pace with that type of geometric growth.
Which is why the banning of bitcoin is going to get much worse.

[Rizzrack]

Contact the writer of the article, and tell him he does not understand crypto

After making 1300+ commits on the bitcoin github repo I assume he understands crypto. Here, contact him yourself mate https://github.com/sipa or https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2786

Wow, you really drank the Bitcoiner Cult Kool-aid
if you can't see that someone was watching the rewrite and took advantage of it for a double-spend in bitcoin ,
so whoever did it, made a $10K profit.

Wow... you really don't know how crypto works, do you ?
That double spent did happen but it's the exchange's fault for not waiting for a number of confirmations before crediting the account. If your website does not need any confirmations for placed orders I can submit my order and buy your crappy ebook "all I know about crypto" and then make a new tx with higher fee to my other address. I buy the crappy ebook and also get to keep my crypto. Who's fault is it ?

oh by the way the writer is Vitalik Buterin , the genius behind ethereum.  

That's literally what "the genius" wrote in the article as well:

What happened in block 225430 was that a single block simultaneously affected the status of over 5,000 transactions, requiring more than 10,000 locks on the b-tree to be made at the same time. As a result, the BerkeleyDB failed, and so the older bitcoind 0.7 (and earlier versions) could not read the block. In the case of bitcoind 0.8, LevelDB has no such restrictions, so it could accept such blocks just fine.

It seems you read what he said and understood what you wanted to understand.

[TangentC]

Bitcoiner Cult Speak.

Enjoy your kool-aid.  

[Rizzrack]

Enjoy your kool-aid.  

Thanks,
Love the taste of a fresh squized PoW without FUD in the morning 

[bekti3]

I don't think this can be called the downfall of bitcoin because in my opinion this is only a temporary decreasing effect of negative news that has occurred for some time and the policies of several countries that do not agree with bitcoin and this I don't think will make bitcoin fall because it will rise again.
and in this case, when viewed from an environmentally friendly perspective, it is possible that large-scale miners may think again and switch to environmentally friendly, not all miners will think the same

[barabarian1]

nope. there are many altcoin popping up, many member still join on them, but most of them will exchange to bitcoin. they sure if bitcoin is more powerful than other coin.
energy consumption never be problem to miner, because bitcoin still promise

[Slow death]

we have to face the harsh reality, this consumption of electricity is a problem, mainly because it depends on cheap electricity for miners to make more profits. let's imagine if in every country in the world the cost of electricity is very high, how will the mining business survive? and what will it be like 10 years from now if things regarding electricity consumption are not resolved? honestly I don't see this problem being resolved in the future, on the contrary I see a very bleak future, governments are very controlling and establish many rules when it comes to electricity

[Shenzou]

I think, that most big crypto mining companies have always been trying to use clean energy for powering their mining rigs, and that is in order to maximize their profit in the long term, and to be honest that is what every one who is planning on making a marge mining rig should be thinking about, they should try to be self sufficient in terms of energy, even though its initial investment may seem closetful but it will pay it self of, and the more people that do so the more we attract more investors toward the crypto market.

[randegibran]

this has absolutely no effect on the network, the cause may be more inclined to the words of Elon Musk and have an impact on the bitcoin stock market price, plus some pressure from countries that stop circulation in their own countries. Maybe that's one of the causes bitcoin's selling price drops.unless Elon Musk is able to rectify what he said some time ago

[Abiky]

the argument isn't so much as "where" the energy comes from, its that fact that it uses a great deal for computations.

Considering this is still an evolving market and seems that POW has the advantage of being more secure, what happens when exchanges start offering insured accounts up to x amount just like a bank.  I believe Coinbase already has some type of account guaranty against unauthorized use. Its interesting of the 10 plus accounts I had the last five years with 50 plus different crypto's I never had an unauthorized transaction.  However my Visa card has been compromised no less than five times

Just thinking of the future and how things evolve, I was told BTC could never go to POS which I thought was the way.

I don't get what the big deal is. Banks and other institutions use far more energy than Bitcoin itself. It's all an attempt to spread FUD in order to lure people away from Bitcoin. As long as the Blockchain remains decentralized, nothing else matters. At least, the energy consumed helps secure the Bitcoin network against external attacks.

PoS consumes less energy, but it's not as secure and reliable as PoW is. I guess that's why Bitcoin hasn't switched its consensus algorithm yet. It's a good thing because this keeps away centralized exchanges from getting control over the entire network. If you remember what happened with the Steem/Justin Sun dilemma, you'll see what I'm talking about. I see a future where most altcoins switch to PoS while Bitcoin remains with PoW for security, reliability, and censorship-resistance. Just my thoughts