Extreme waste of electricity

[Furio]

If Nikola Tesla had his way we'd all have free wireless electricity.

Rip Tesla.

We spend alot more resources digging up gold and precious metals from the ground, that it makes the cost of mining bitcoin seem trivial in comparison.

A great mind with great inventions, stolen from the people and all its benefits

[1714095687]

1714095687

[1714095687]

1714095687

[Gleb Gamow]

Did u know large amount of electricity cannot be stored n what the electricity companies produce has to be used.. So y not use it on miners.. Lol

The problem i think that is being pointed out, is that you will be charged to use electricity that otherwise would be wasted… A decent solution to this has been proposed even if it was a pie in the sky idea, is that power plants get into bitcoin mining to secure the network with their otherwise wasted excess, and no dollars should be paid on what otherwise would be wasted energy.

Paying for wasted energy is what is wasteful.

I think houses and businesses should be built to use that excess energy that's being produced.

[Soros Shorts]

If Nikola Tesla had his way we'd all have free wireless electricity.

You wouldn't want to fly in plane in between 2 Tesla coils though, or the coils would perform just like they did in C&C Red Alert.

[johnyj]

if there will no mining cost the people will dump for cheap that will crash bitcoin price
it is the mining cost that keep its price high

How is it the mining cost that will keep the price high ? Care to explain ?

It is the price(driven by demand) keep the mining cost high, not the other way around

Given a market price of $200, if coin A cost $300 to mine while coin B cost $100 to mine, people will always mine coin B and sell it at market price to make $100 profit immediately, and that will increase the difficulty. Thus the mining cost of coin B will eventually reach $200

Same, they will quit mining coin A thus bring down the difficulty of coin A, and the cost of mining coin A will go down towards $200

[kepo07]

Bitcoin was first designed by SN to be able to allow everyone to mine on their desktop computer thus giving everyone a chance at getting coins and making the network decentralized. If you limit it to only a certain amount of specific hardware to mine the specific algorithm, it could result in the network being more centralized as only those who have the hardware can mine.

[Come-from-Beyond]

most electricity is used or lost, what is the big deal....

The issue is that electric comanies leech a lot of money every day from Bitcoin industry.

https://blockchain.info/charts/network-deficit

[Come-from-Beyond]

That electricity cost is for keeping bitcoin network safe, and in same way the miners get reward from mining.

It's an urban legend created by bitcoin hoarders. Bitcoin network would be safe even if we didn't burn electricity. All that is required is a way to counteract a Sybil attack.

[Come-from-Beyond]

Please read the entire Myths Wiki before posting another thread: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths

Don't read Myths Wiki, it's written by biased people. Do your own research on the Internet.

[inBitweTrust]

It's an urban legend created by bitcoin hoarders. Bitcoin network would be safe even if we didn't burn electricity. All that is required is a way to counteract a Sybil attack.

Much like the urban legend that PoS is more secure than Bitcoin PoW or that there has never been a successful 51% attack upon a PoS coin.

The strengths and disadvantages of PoW vs PoS is a very nuanced and complicated discussion. There is no denying that PoS has a much lower overhead cost for security than PoW, but that security cost does have some distinct differences over PoS.

My opinion is that we should keep PoW and add a TaPoS security layer ontop of either a sidechain or a wallet to increase security and not decrease it.

The greatest dataset we have so far that proves the strength of Bitcoin's PoW security algo is the fact that it has survived this long with a tremendous amount of scrutiny over the greatest amount of time and with a market cap that gives plenty of governments, hackers, and investors plenty of incentive to attack it.

[nikona]

Please read the entire Myths Wiki before posting another thread: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths

Don't read Myths Wiki, it's written by biased people. Do your own research on the Internet.

Yeha I agree with you.. Myths r Myths they r like something that could be theoretically right but in practicality.. doesnt work at all...that was just an example..n there r loads of things that r a waste of space or electricity..this seems to be way lower on the list

[Come-from-Beyond]

Much like the urban legend that PoS is more secure than Bitcoin PoW or that there has never been a successful 51% attack upon a PoS coin.

I don't talk about PoS. That was about a PoW.

[inBitweTrust]

Much like the urban legend that PoS is more secure than Bitcoin PoW or that there has never been a successful 51% attack upon a PoS coin.

I don't talk about PoS. That was about a PoW.

What other methods to counteract a Sybil attack were you referring to? Non existent versions of PoR or another type of PoS like PoI , TaPoS, PoSV, ect...?

[Come-from-Beyond]

What other methods to counteract a Sybil attack were you referring to? Non existent versions of PoR or another type of PoS like PoI , TaPoS, PoSV, ect...?

The one used in SuperNET.

[johnyj]

That electricity cost is for keeping bitcoin network safe, and in same way the miners get reward from mining.

It's an urban legend created by bitcoin hoarders. Bitcoin network would be safe even if we didn't burn electricity. All that is required is a way to counteract a Sybil attack.

Burning electricity is a result of competition: If everyone is allowed to create the money, and the money supply is limited, as a result of competition, the cost of creating money will rise up until it get close to the value of the money, this is the nature of free market

Suppose that one day fusion power is available and electricity becomes free, then the competition will shift to mining chips, the cost will still be close to its market price

Only in monopole money creation you can avoid competition thus avoid the cost of creating money. But then who is maintaining that monopole will command too much power, it will become corrupted and the single point of failure, avoid such a system is the whole point of bitcoin

By the way, it seems that the cost of produce fiat money is extremely low, but the cost to maintain that monopole is huge: You must have court, police, large armies and weapons to defend the currency, and usually only after a costly large war that kills millions of people you could gain this monopole

[inBitweTrust]

What other methods to counteract a Sybil attack were you referring to? Non existent versions of PoR or another type of PoS like PoI , TaPoS, PoSV, ect...?

The one used in SuperNET.

So a variation of PoS most closely defined as a TaPoS variation thus refuting your previous comment of not talking about PoS.

You understand that you don't need to use the term "PoS" to discuss it, right?

Only in monopole money creation you can avoid competition thus avoid the cost of creating money. But then who is maintaining that monopole will command too much power, it will become corrupted and the single point of failure, avoid such a system is the whole point of bitcoin

Correct, this is the often ignored benefit of PoW which allows for a more equitable distribution of coins vs an ICO or staking. With PoW an asic manufacturer could leapfrog the other manufacturers with more efficient improvements in design and individuals who take risks and or have more streamlined operations can overthrow the existing mining monopolies at any given moment and it has already taken place multiple times within the last 5 years already.

With an ICO like NxT the distribution is mainly determined by the initial ~73 investors who control almost all the coins and with bitcoin the distribution can shift not only by buying the coins directly off early stakeholders but with more efficient means of mining.

[Come-from-Beyond]

So a variation of PoS most closely defined as a TaPoS variation thus refuting your previous comment of not talking about PoS.

I bet you don't understand how SuperNET is protected against Sybil attacks. If you did you wouldn't write this nonsense.

[ParisNorway]

There are worse ways to waste electricity.

[Klestin]

now the bitcoin community is sending over $10 dollars/day (in fiat no less) to power companies all over the world.

Holy hell, I had no idea it was that bad!  That's like, over $300 a month!!!  Enough to power one home in the Summer! Oh the humanity!

[Kipsy89]

Wouldn't it be better if just made 1,000,000 Block Erupters and a special hash algorithm that only those limited number of hardware devices could do.  Distribute those 1M devices and let that be the entire hash pool. 

hashing power went way out of control, now the bitcoin community is sending over $10 dollars/day (in fiat no less) to power companies all over the world.  That money doesn't come from nowhere - it is real money lost by the community.  We've got to find an end to wasteful hashing.

The idea of a proof-of-work algorithm is is that there's no way of forging the work. What you're suggesting could be circumvented by people copying the hardware - how would you stop them?

[Patel]

Legitimate question

Alot of people disregard Proof-of-stake as insecure, but has this been proven? I have not heard of any POS coins getting hacked via their onsensus algorithm. What about DPOS? Why do people think it's insecure?