Your experiences with energy efficient cryptocurrencies?

[teosanru]

I am watching with concerns the development of climate change and global warming. While I believe that cryptocurrencies make only a small contribution, even many small things add up to a large number.

Bitcoin consumes a lot of power and I don't know if that can change. What do you guys think? As far as I understand, the trust in Bitcoin is mainly due to the proof of work mechanism. And with this, the high power consumption is probably inseparable?

I'm considering investing more in altcoins based on proof of stake or proof of personhood. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages?

The only solution to energy-consuming cryptocurrencies is POS currency obviously. But the proof of stake comes with its own set of big disadvantages, as for a person who enters staking late at a higher price, he will never be able to compete with the person who started early. There always will be a big difference between both of them. Same is not the case in POW currencies as no matter how late you enter, if you enter with the same capital you get same rewards as the equipment decides who gets more reward and not the number of coins you hold. A good substitute was the Chia blockchain which didn't use power but used HDD space, but it too faced the problem of limitation of space in a normal SSD & that SSDs used to get damaged pretty easily, so failed completely as a project, we do have Nano which offers something different than the rest but so far don't see it becoming competition to Bitcoin, but that I see is the only contendor.

[RealMalatesta]

The only solution to energy-consuming cryptocurrencies is POS currency obviously. But the proof of stake comes with its own set of big disadvantages, as for a person who enters staking late at a higher price, he will never be able to compete with the person who started early. There always will be a big difference between both of them. Same is not the case in POW currencies as no matter how late you enter, if you enter with the same capital you get same rewards as the equipment decides who gets more reward and not the number of coins you hold. A good substitute was the Chia blockchain which didn't use power but used HDD space, but it too faced the problem of limitation of space in a normal SSD & that SSDs used to get damaged pretty easily, so failed completely as a project, we do have Nano which offers something different than the rest but so far don't see it becoming competition to Bitcoin, but that I see is the only contendor.

POS is not the only solution, the defi world does staking for you and yet you do not have to keep your PC open, there are so many different methods, masternodes and other methods where it is open but on a very simple PC that you could rent for cheap for example.

All in all, everything is better than the currently high energy mining system but that is not undesirable neither. Look at how much everything spends on energy, even tesla is seen as "cleaner solution" and yet spends energy, same electricity that miners use, why is one called clean and other is trash? I have to say as long as we do not go to more clean versions where no electricity or tiny amount is spent, we can't really call any other method clean just yet in ANY sector, not just crypto.

[teosanru]

The only solution to energy-consuming cryptocurrencies is POS currency obviously. But the proof of stake comes with its own set of big disadvantages, as for a person who enters staking late at a higher price, he will never be able to compete with the person who started early. There always will be a big difference between both of them. Same is not the case in POW currencies as no matter how late you enter, if you enter with the same capital you get same rewards as the equipment decides who gets more reward and not the number of coins you hold. A good substitute was the Chia blockchain which didn't use power but used HDD space, but it too faced the problem of limitation of space in a normal SSD & that SSDs used to get damaged pretty easily, so failed completely as a project, we do have Nano which offers something different than the rest but so far don't see it becoming competition to Bitcoin, but that I see is the only contendor.

POS is not the only solution, the defi world does staking for you and yet you do not have to keep your PC open, there are so many different methods, masternodes and other methods where it is open but on a very simple PC that you could rent for cheap for example.

All in all, everything is better than the currently high energy mining system but that is not undesirable neither. Look at how much everything spends on energy, even tesla is seen as "cleaner solution" and yet spends energy, same electricity that miners use, why is one called clean and other is trash? I have to say as long as we do not go to more clean versions where no electricity or tiny amount is spent, we can't really call any other method clean just yet in ANY sector, not just crypto.

My question isn't about the type of PC, it's about the amount you are putting to Stake, let's say you are going to stake solana which definitely looks like the most promising currency of the future. Now you might have staked it in with $10000 when price was just 1$ per sol which means you have 10000 SOL of stake in the pool, but while I bought it when it was 100 so I just have 100 SOL which will carry 100 times less stake than your Stake even though we staked similar amount. Now if price of currency becomes this high obviously it's only the early adopters who make money in case of POS.

[Fretum]

So far, I have only had my own experience with Idena.

Do you have a human status?
How long have you been a member?

All in all, everything is better than the currently high energy mining system...

Could POW & POS be made more environmentally friendly or are there simply natural limits because of the technology?

[magneto]

I am watching with concerns the development of climate change and global warming. While I believe that cryptocurrencies make only a small contribution, even many small things add up to a large number.

Bitcoin consumes a lot of power and I don't know if that can change. What do you guys think? As far as I understand, the trust in Bitcoin is mainly due to the proof of work mechanism. And with this, the high power consumption is probably inseparable?

I'm considering investing more in altcoins based on proof of stake or proof of personhood. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages?

I think that it's not a bad idea.

The media definitely exaggerates the environmental effects of PoW coins, especially bitcoin, just because it is extremely topical.

However, I do think that in the long run we are going to move towards more efficient protocols that consume less energy and are faster in general. Fantom is a good example of this, and I'm currently in the process of rotating into that L1 chain as the price has dipped significantly.

[schupp]

Bitcoin is very important right now, but it will be replaced by other projects in the future. Energy-related problems are temporary and cannot determine the fate of cryptocurrencies. If you trust cryptocurrencies, don't worry about energy 

It's not quite that simple, I think. Energy is a limited resource and energy consumption is likely to play a role for some time to come. Of course, solar energy can be used for PoW. But at the moment we have the situation worldwide that there is not enough green energy yet. So if green energy is used for PoW, this energy is missing elsewhere. This will probably not be the case forever. But at the moment I see that as a problem.

Then there's Ethereum for you which is starting their way to POS.
Advantages. Just like you said. Energy. If you are the type of persons that is concerned about energy saving then you can always choose different type of consensus mechanism.
Disadvantages. Staking is kind of a long term investment if you ask me and it mostly relies to the amount of coins that you have to see the difference of what you will make. But, you will have peace of mind knowing you didn't support a high energy cost project.

The thing is, I think PoS is a better solution than PoW in many ways right now. But I see it like you do. PoS is not perfect either and has a few disadvantages.

If you are considering in investing in POS where a few will have majority stake then it is your choice, the POS mechanism always attract big investors with big funds and they control everything but i like the decentralized way rather than investing in staking ones for the long run.

Yes, that's one of the problems I see with PoS. Early investors or wealthy investors who hold a large portion of the coins can, in the worst case, decide about the network and exclude participants or transactions. Also, the consensus rules could be changed by such investors, right?

Do you have a human status?
How long have you been a member?

I do not have the human status yet. I only came across Idena at the beginning of the year when I started to get more involved with energy efficient cryptocurrencies. At first, I just read a bit about it until I started participating in the validations. Unfortunately, it didn't work out for me for a week because I had an important appointment at the time. But if you can't be there occasionally, it doesn't really matter.

I don't think PoP is 100% perfect yet. But the community is developing the project together. And each participant has only one vote, which counts the same for everyone.

However, I do think that in the long run we are going to move towards more efficient protocols that consume less energy and are faster in general.

I also think that the development will go in this direction. Sometimes the path will lead to dead ends or will have to be optimized, but I also think that the development will generally go in the direction of sustainability.

[Fretum]

The media definitely exaggerates the environmental effects of PoW coins, especially bitcoin, just because it is extremely topical.

That may be true. Nevertheless, the energy consumption is there. If saving energy is important, you can very quickly live without cryptocurrencies. The more priority given to energy consumption, the more it comes into focus. That's a big criticism. The question is: when will energy conservation become a serious requirement for cryptocurrencies? Has the point already come, is it imminent or will it take a long time to get to this point?

I do not have the human status yet. I only came across Idena at the beginning of the year when I started to get more involved with energy efficient cryptocurrencies. At first, I just read a bit about it until I started participating in the validations. Unfortunately, it didn't work out for me for a week because I had an important appointment at the time. But if you can't be there occasionally, it doesn't really matter.

I don't think PoP is 100% perfect yet. But the community is developing the project together. And each participant has only one vote, which counts the same for everyone.

We'll see where the proof of personhood protocol goes. It's certainly a good step if you can save more energy and it's also more democratic.
More people would have to think about the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies, maybe there would be more changes. You can change the protocol. That wouldn't be the problem.

[Pejoh Asu]

The issue of global warming from cryptocurrencies is unproven, if there are findings of global warming from cryptocurrencies I'm sure the contribution is no more than 1%, haters are always looking for reasons to make FUDs and the government stop cryptocurrencies and this is actually a positive campaign from newcomers to learn and invest in cryptocurrencies.

[schupp]

What are the requirements and regulations for cryptocurrencies is already not the same everywhere in the world. And I don't believe that there will be a globally uniform solution in the future. The EU Parliament recently discussed a ban on proof of work, but then decided against it. This time. But I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that in the future there could be specifications for the power consumption of cryptocurrencies in the EU, for example.

I also believe that there is no evidence of how high the percentage of cryptos in climate change is. The global climate is incredibly complex and has so many variables that it is impossible to say exactly what is having what effect now. But there's no question that the climate is changing, is there? And also that the effects of climate change will not be particularly pretty. That's enough for me to try to live more sustainably. But it's okay for me if other people see it differently.

We'll see where the proof of personhood protocol goes. It's certainly a good step if you can save more energy and it's also more democratic.
More people would have to think about the energy consumption of cryptocurrencies, maybe there would be more changes. You can change the protocol. That wouldn't be the problem.

I believe Proof of Personhood is attractive not only because of its energy efficiency, but also because each participant's vote counts equally. So you don't have to be a member of a mining pool or hold a large share of coins to participate profitably.

[Fretum]

The issue of global warming from cryptocurrencies is unproven, if there are findings of global warming from cryptocurrencies I'm sure the contribution is no more than 1%, haters are always looking for reasons to make FUDs and the government stop cryptocurrencies and this is actually a positive campaign from newcomers to learn and invest in cryptocurrencies.

That may be true. But it is very easy to criticize cryptocurrencies for this. Many positive aspects are pushed into the background. You shouldn't expose yourself to that. Therefore, one should try to solve this problem as soon as possible. You don't have to make it easy for the haters.

[Fretum]

I also believe that there is no evidence of how high the percentage of cryptos in climate change is.


I believe Proof of Personhood is attractive not only because of its energy efficiency, but also because each participant's vote counts equally. So you don't have to be a member of a mining pool or hold a large share of coins to participate profitably.

But if the image is conveyed, you have a problem. So you shouldn't just say it's not like that. Instead, you should reduce energy consumption. Then you can show something and counter the criticism.

This is another aspect that should certainly appeal to some people. If you already have certain disadvantages in the real world, you shouldn't have any disadvantages in the digital world. This system should not even be allowed to emerge in the digital world.

[schupp]

I would also like the virtual world to be fairer than real life. But I think some developments are pretty similar. Unlike conventional currencies, cryptocurrencies wanted or still want to be decentralized. The power should not be in the hands of a few. Nevertheless, it is now the case, especially with popular cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, that large, organized mining pools have much more influence and benefits than individuals. This is not entirely different from the general distribution of wealth and power.

The fact that every vote in the community counts equally is something I think is better with cryptocurrencies like Idena, which are based on proof of personhood. But that requires a crypto identity that really ensures that each account can only belong to a single, real person. Getting such a crypto identity takes some effort. But in return, every participant has the same chances to receive rewards and to have a say in the game.

[Gayong88]

I am watching with concerns the development of climate change and global warming. While I believe that cryptocurrencies make only a small contribution, even many small things add up to a large number.

Bitcoin consumes a lot of power and I don't know if that can change. What do you guys think? As far as I understand, the trust in Bitcoin is mainly due to the proof of work mechanism. And with this, the high power consumption is probably inseparable?

I'm considering investing more in altcoins based on proof of stake or proof of personhood. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages?

Most miner's primary concern is expenses. Power consumption is one of those factors that gives them headache which is why more and more miners go with renewable energy. Hydro, Geothermal and wind power are some of the choices and are not only economical but also lessens the effects of climate change when mining cryptos. Even though it might take long, If all miners choose renewable energy then we would certainly see more support with Bitcoin and other similar PoW cryptos towards their stand on climate change.
If you're keen on looking for cryptos that has less environmental impact now then go with either ADA, XLM, ALGO, SOL, even ETH with their planned PoS and all other PoS altcoins and tokens. I think that is one of the key advantages of PoS than PoW coins/altcoins, having less impact on the environment. Just simply fund and run your wallet and see your rewards pour in.

I agree, that means there are Various factors like capacity, cost, stability and functionality making it a very attractive investment and Eco-friendly tokens and cost savings are the key to being one of the most popular cryptos on the market today.

[Fretum]

The fact that every vote in the community counts equally is something I think is better with cryptocurrencies like Idena, which are based on proof of personhood. But that requires a crypto identity that really ensures that each account can only belong to a single, real person. Getting such a crypto identity takes some effort. But in return, every participant has the same chances to receive rewards and to have a say in the game.

Completing four validations of about 30 minutes is not a big effort in my opinion. Then you have proven that you are human. You would have probably already after the first test, but there should be a certain hurdle for access. You also want to bind people to the validation. People have to take part in the validation, that's what the project thrives on.

[schupp]

Completing four validations of about 30 minutes is not a big effort in my opinion. Then you have proven that you are human. You would have probably already after the first test, but there should be a certain hurdle for access. You also want to bind people to the validation. People have to take part in the validation, that's what the project thrives on.

I'm not saying it's a big effort. But it is an effort. But I think it's worth it to be a part of the community and to be able to mine. You don't have to participate in the validations to be able to buy IDNA. Apart from the validations, I think that the groups on Telegram and so on also contribute to a good sense of community.

I agree, that means there are Various factors like capacity, cost, stability and functionality making it a very attractive investment and Eco-friendly tokens and cost savings are the key to being one of the most popular cryptos on the market today.

There is a lot going on in the crypto market at the moment. Let's see what will change in the future. I think that maybe some of the more popular cryptocurrencies will crash, while some previously undervalued cryptocurrencies will probably get the chance to develop their potential. And I think, as I said, like you, that green and energy-efficient cryptocurrencies that maybe even enable sharding will have advantages.

[Anders127]

I've used Peercoin which is a fork of Bitcoin but with pos for securing the chain and pow for distribution. I find it pretty neat. It has a small chain of just about a GiB in size and require very little in terms of compute resources. Unlike Bitcoin Peercoin have no hard cap on its supply instead burning transaction fees and rewarding stalking with minting new coins. This solves the problem of what will happen when bitcoin won't issue an reward anymore while preventing overuse of transactions due to deflation. Controll of the network lies with it's holders unlike in Bitcoin where owners of large mining farms decide what proposals should be accepted.

It was a fair non cash grab kind of a coin announced ahead of time giving everyone an equal chance to be first on the chain. No initial coin offerings or other marketing hype to pump the price to the moon. It lives a quiet life nowdays since there isn't much to say about it. It can do everything bitcoin can do and has less flaws. Unfortunately for Peercoin Bitcoin flaws are non-critical and do not matter to most users. Being first gives Bitcoin powerful legitimacy and network effects which clones can't match. Fortunately for me I hold both so it's not a big deal but it's a shame when good projects fail to bring adoption.

Peercoin still got active development though so it's not dead yet. I find it enjoyable to hold and be able to play with.

[bocyaj]

ADA was my favourite crypto currency,which give huge strength to the investors.It give us good profit at all the stages of the pump.We never fear or worry about the current price of the ADA.Surely all this will recover to the good potential.When the people had their strong holding the ADA,it was assured to get enough profit from their investments in longer period.

[Fretum]

But I think it's worth it to be a part of the community and to be able to mine. You don't have to participate in the validations to be able to buy IDNA. Apart from the validations, I think that the groups on Telegram and so on also contribute to a good sense of community.

It's interesting to be able to participate in a project at such an early stage. Then you see all the developments. And especially with Idena you have a say. you decide with all the other participants how the project will develop. just last week an innovation was introduced after the community voted for it. My goal is to collect as much IDNA as possible with the validation. Then we'll see what comes of it, if the price goes up, that's great. If not, at least you've seen how it works in such early stages. In the Community you always get all the information and of course exchange ideas. I think that's also important to know where the journey should go. Otherwise you wouldn't really be able to understand all the votes.

[Jackl87]

I am watching with concerns the development of climate change and global warming. While I believe that cryptocurrencies make only a small contribution, even many small things add up to a large number.
Bitcoin consumes a lot of power and I don't know if that can change. What do you guys think? As far as I understand, the trust in Bitcoin is mainly due to the proof of work mechanism. And with this, the high power consumption is probably inseparable?
I'm considering investing more in altcoins based on proof of stake or proof of personhood. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages?

I saw a statistic a few months back that said that bitcoin mining consumed more electricity than the whole country of Ukraine and this was before the war in the Ukraine started of course. Given the fact that Ukraine is a pretty big country with a population of more than 40 million people i was really surprised about this fact and this is definitely something that is not good for the public opinion about Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. I think that a proof of stake mechanism can be or even is already just as safe as a proof of work mechanism like bitcoin has it because there big mining companies also have a lot of power of the network.

[GelesFinance]

Over the last years Bitcoin mining seems to be very energy consuming and not that efficient. Several countries are already suffering from problems with electicity power because of blocks calculation power extensive usage.