4 Matching Annotations
- Aug 2024
-
x.com x.com
-
https://x.com/Chronotope/status/1828785701732663335
Crypto miners are being paid not to mine to ease energy production/consumption cycles.
Related to protection money for the mob
re: https://x.com/curious_founder/status/1828511303788322888/photo/1 on The Economist's article about crypto mining in Texas o/a 2024-08-27
-
- Jan 2023
-
docdrop.org docdrop.org
-
can have a pretty outsized carbon footprint and I'm wondering how you reconcile the vast amount of computational power necessary to accomplish this work and its negative impact on the environment and whether or not this is something you all are considering
Question: has the project considered the energy impact?
-
- Sep 2022
-
davidgerard.co.uk davidgerard.co.uk
-
You throw away computing power as fast as possible to show you deserve the bitcoins. Your chance of winning the bitcoin lottery is in direct proportion to how much you waste. Bitcoin mining now uses over 0.5% of all the electricity in the world — for the same seven transactions per second it managed to do in 2009. Bitcoin is the most inefficient payment system in human history.
Proof-of-work effects
-
- Jun 2022
-
blog.cryptographyengineering.com blog.cryptographyengineering.com
-
Proof-of-work is not the only technology we have on which to build consensus protocols. Today, many forward-looking networks are deploying proof-of-stake (PoS) for their consensus. In these systems, your “voting power” in the network is determined by your ownership stake in some valuable on-chain asset, such as a new or existing electronic token. Since cryptocurrency has coincidentally spent a lot of time distributing tokens, this means that new protocols can essentially “cut out the middleman” and simply use coin ownership directly as a proxy for voting power, rather than requiring operators to sell their coins to buy electricity and mining hardware. Proof-of-stake systems are not perfect: they still lead to some centralization of power, since in this paradigm the rich tend to get richer. However it’s hard to claim that the result will be worse than the semi-centralized mess that proof-of-work mining has turned into.
Proof-of-Stake can replace Proof-of-Work
This is a big caveat here...the nature of the tech leads to a centralization of power that means "the rich tend to get richer." For the sake of removing the environmental consequences of consensus building, does it seem worthwhile to anoint a subset of users to get richer from the use of the tech?
-