Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Somewhat good news for GPU prices, Proof of work taking a hit.

CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,334
edited May 15 in Hardware
With Crypto currency, someone like Elon Musk has a bit of influence. Like when he drove up the price of DogeCoin. In a recent tweet, Elon Musk mentioned Tesla will no longer be accepting Bitcoin as payment due to it's electrical demands and less than ideal renewable energy used to power the grid. Bitcoin itself consumes 0.78% of all electrical demands globally. It's believed that 73% of this is from renewables.

As a result, most proof of work cryptos are taking a hit while proof of stake cryptos have seen a jump. Bitcoin is down 17%, Ethereum up 8%, DogeCoin down 27% and Cardano up 44% in the last week. Most of that change happened in the last couple days with Ethereum now trending down.
«134

Comments

  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,871
    ETH value has increased more than 50% during last month.

    It'd need a much bigger hit before miners would stop buying cards.
    blueturtle13Deathkon1NycteliosTorval
     
  • Deathkon1Deathkon1 Member UncommonPosts: 171
    This wont stop the current trend especially since in the law at least in america unless its minted coins the government in case of a emergency is legally allowed to take your gold which makes bit coin as a safer investment then having a safety deposit box of gold, with this being the case you really think this will stop gpu prices from being expensive af? lol no nothing will change
    Gdemami
    Eye Of The Storm And Ground Zero At Your Service, This Life Is My Party I'll Die When I Want To And The Worlds Stuck With Me For Another 90 Years So.... Good Luck With That

    ───────────────────────────────────────

    Music Updated 
    https://biturl.top/ie2ii2
  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 4,056
    Vrika said:
    ETH value has increased more than 50% during last month.

    It'd need a much bigger hit before miners would stop buying cards.
    Here on Brazil due companies using dollar price as base (even when the product is made here and dollar has little to no impact on it) you can't just upgrade your PC anymore.

    It's an insane investment. I gaive up on upgrading mine for the time being. I'd rather use the money to make an initial payment in a new condo or something.
    TorvalGdemami
    Discord ID: Night # 6102
    Current playing: 
    Guilty Gear - Strive | Pillars of Eternity

    "There is a fine line between consideration and hesitation. The former is wisdom, the latter is fear." Izaro Phrecius, Holy Emperor of the Eternal Empire, Last of Royal Phrecius Family.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 15,337
    With the amount of electricity being consumed I wonder how long before cryptocurrency gets a green tax put on it? Past time really.
    TorvalGdemamiNycteliosDeathkon1VrikaTheocritusWalkinGlenn
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,354
    On the same news page where BTC lost over $350Bn an article title said that a major Ethereum founder and stakeholder donated $1Bn to India.


    Of course the details highlight the fragility of these pyramid schemes as the "money" isn't easily liquidated and the recipients had to make a statement that they would act responsibly to not tank the value of the meme-stock that was donated. So, instead of using this for relief money they have a burdensome asset on their hands which they must manage.

    This makes me wonder if that tool (Buterin) is just trying to legitimize crypto in an event to make himself look good.

    Because of the high volatility and fragility of these markets I think these events will only encourage additional and more furious mining to get rich before it all crashes. Something will eventually have to give, but when and how is pretty open to debate.

    I don't see relief for retail hardware anytime soon. In fact when Ethereum shifts over to its proof of stake I think we'll see an even harder hit to storage devices (SSD and HDD) as miners will need to store massive volumes of data.
    GdemamiScot
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,334
    Most are mined in countries that support the trade, on their own grid, or in an area with cheap electricity. No chance a Green tax hits the miners. 
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,126
    Taxing a mined cryptocurrency would be hard.  Killing the cryptocurrency entirely would be easy, at least for any major government inclined to do so.

    Suppose that a major government decided that Bitcoin is bad and publicly announced that it was going to launch a 51% attack on it.  All that it takes is for the government to be willing to outspend all of the miners and that cryptocurrency is dead.  Given that there's no question that a major government could do that if so inclined, how much money do you think miners would be willing to spend to prevent it?  And even that assumes that the government doesn't "cheat" by confiscating mining hardware, which tends to be very concentrated and hence easy to seize.

    With a credible claim that a 51% attack is coming and going to wipe out that cryptocurrency, how much do you think people would be willing to pay to buy it anyway, knowing that it's soon going to be worthless?  Most likely, its value would tank long before the government followed through.

    All of the built-in incentives not to do things that will wreck a cryptocurrency assume that the players involved own a lot of the currency and want for it to remain valuable.  That doesn't work for a government that is setting out to destroy the currency and would be happy to see its value go to $0.

    Considering that all that you'd have to do to kill Bitcoin is scare people into believing that it's going to be worthless, the actual cost to a government to kill it wouldn't necessarily substantially exceed the cost of a press release.
    GdemamiRidelynn
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    edited May 16
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,126
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    All it takes is one major government announcing that they're going to launch a 51% attack on it and it will all go *poof* faster than Enron.
    GdemamiChildoftheShadowsScot
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,209
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy 

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    Apparently, people are mining alt coins on GPUs, and getting paid out in BTC. That's how a lot of Eth mining is going on, so I'm told.

    As far as 74% of BTC running on renewables... I wonder how they came up with that claim. 

    Quiz is right - the value of BTC is entirely based on faith. It wouldn't even take a 51% attack to tank BTC (or any other crypto) - it only works because people want it to work. And if "motivated actors" didn't want it to work, it would stop working in a hurry.

    Look - all it took was Elon Musk saying he wasn't going to accept it anymore at Tesla to tank a considerable amount of value. Now, he didn't kill BTC all on his own, but just imagine that next is a few hedge funds announcing BTC selloffs shortly thereafter... then maybe a few large personal investors dump on the down low. A bad run and the house of cards all comes tumbling down. You can think that would never happen.. but that's exactly how stock market crashes happen all the time -- except stocks have real companies behind them that provide goods and services to be able to lean on assets and people to re-establish their stock worth, BTC has.... a ledger?
    GdemamiTorvalGroqstrong
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    Quizzical said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    All it takes is one major government announcing that they're going to launch a 51% attack on it and it will all go *poof* faster than Enron.
    Nonsense. 
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,126
    edited May 16
    Quizzical said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    All it takes is one major government announcing that they're going to launch a 51% attack on it and it will all go *poof* faster than Enron.
    Nonsense. 
    Any mined cryptocurrency will become unusable if someone launches a 51% attack on it.  The great weakness of "proof of work" is that if anyone proves that they're doing more work than everyone else together, then the system is designed to believe whatever the group that holds 51%+ of mining capacity claims is true about future transactions.

    The usual defense against that is that if you own a large fraction of the world's bitcoins, then you don't want to wreck the currency and destroy the value.  That doesn't work for a government coming in with the express intent of destroying Bitcoin.

    In order for a government to launch a successful 51% attack, they wouldn't have to steal all of the coins or shut down the servers.  All that they'd need to do is to create enough chaos that no one else could use the system.  Bitcoin would have a reliable record of who owned what before the 51% attack started, but no way for anyone to transfer currency after that point in time.

    It wouldn't take a broad conspiracy among governments, either.  The government of South Korea cutting a deal with Samsung to design and build ASICs would be enough to end Bitcoin forcibly, without regard to what the rest of the world does, and there would be absolutely nothing that miners could do about it.  Quite a few other governments could do it, too, if so inclined; South Korea is just an arbitrary example.

    And if that's all that it would take to bring Bitcoin to a swift end, quite a few other cryptocurrencies would die a whole lot more easily.
    Gdemami
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    All it takes is one major government announcing that they're going to launch a 51% attack on it and it will all go *poof* faster than Enron.
    Nonsense. 
    Any mined cryptocurrency will become unusable if someone launches a 51% attack on it.  The great weakness of "proof of work" is that if anyone proves that they're doing more work than everyone else together, then the system is designed to believe whatever the group that holds 51%+ of mining capacity claims is true about future transactions.

    The usual defense against that is that if you own a large fraction of the world's bitcoins, then you don't want to wreck the currency and destroy the value.  That doesn't work for a government coming in with the express intent of destroying Bitcoin.

    In order for a government to launch a successful 51% attack, they wouldn't have to steal all of the coins or shut down the servers.  All that they'd need to do is to create enough chaos that no one else could use the system.  Bitcoin would have a reliable record of who owned what before the 51% attack started, but no way for anyone to transfer currency after that point in time.

    It wouldn't take a broad conspiracy among governments, either.  The government of South Korea cutting a deal with Samsung to design and build ASICs would be enough to end Bitcoin forcibly, without regard to what the rest of the world does, and there would be absolutely nothing that miners could do about it.  Quite a few other governments could do it, too, if so inclined; South Korea is just an arbitrary example.

    And if that's all that it would take to bring Bitcoin to a swift end, quite a few other cryptocurrencies would die a whole lot more easily.
    A 51% attack would allow at most a double spend, but would be discovered. Any hysteria around a 51% attack is unfounded. It’s ridiculous. 
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,871
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    All it takes is one major government announcing that they're going to launch a 51% attack on it and it will all go *poof* faster than Enron.
    Nonsense. 
    Any mined cryptocurrency will become unusable if someone launches a 51% attack on it.  The great weakness of "proof of work" is that if anyone proves that they're doing more work than everyone else together, then the system is designed to believe whatever the group that holds 51%+ of mining capacity claims is true about future transactions.

    The usual defense against that is that if you own a large fraction of the world's bitcoins, then you don't want to wreck the currency and destroy the value.  That doesn't work for a government coming in with the express intent of destroying Bitcoin.

    In order for a government to launch a successful 51% attack, they wouldn't have to steal all of the coins or shut down the servers.  All that they'd need to do is to create enough chaos that no one else could use the system.  Bitcoin would have a reliable record of who owned what before the 51% attack started, but no way for anyone to transfer currency after that point in time.

    It wouldn't take a broad conspiracy among governments, either.  The government of South Korea cutting a deal with Samsung to design and build ASICs would be enough to end Bitcoin forcibly, without regard to what the rest of the world does, and there would be absolutely nothing that miners could do about it.  Quite a few other governments could do it, too, if so inclined; South Korea is just an arbitrary example.

    And if that's all that it would take to bring Bitcoin to a swift end, quite a few other cryptocurrencies would die a whole lot more easily.
    A 51% attack would allow at most a double spend, but would be discovered. Any hysteria around a 51% attack is unfounded. It’s ridiculous. 
    It's not unfounded.

    However governments usually do not do that kind of thing. They don't publicly sabotage an activity unless it's something clearly criminal, and a 51% attack could not be done stealthily either.

    If a government wants to get rid of crypto, they'll just outlaw its use to everything within their jurisdiction and that's it.
    TorvaltzervoGdemami
     
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 15,337
    edited May 16
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    I am afraid 74% of your post sounds like tosh, no disrespect intend. If you are an organisation or person making money out of Bitcoin, a green tax would be applied to your profits. Now many of those who mine Cryptocurrency could be below the tax threshold or age for the country concerned which is fine. An estimate of that could be made and those who do pay would pay more tax. Such a tax should be proportionate, for example it should be no where near the tax level applied to using energy from an energy company as we are talking about less than 1%.

    I tend to find defenders of CC who like yourself will fall on their sword for it, are all miners themselves, good luck with that but don't let you future depend on something so potentially volatile.
    Gdemami
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,871
    Scot said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    I am afraid 74% of your post sounds like tosh, no disrespect intend. If you are an organisation or person making money out of Bitcoin, a green tax would be applied to your profits. Now many of those who mine Cryptocurrency could be below the tax threshold or age for the country concerned which is fine. An estimate of that could be made and those who do pay would pay more tax. Such a tax should be proportionate, for example it should be no where near the tax level applied to using energy from an energy company as we are talking about less than 1%.

    I tend to find defenders of CC who like yourself will fall on their sword for it, are all miners themselves, good luck with that but don't let you future depend on something so potentially volatile.
    I think in here it's not really even question of how much of Bitcoin is actually produced with green energy.

    Energy must both be saved and produced with eco-friendlier methods. Neither is good enough solution alone.

    So if you've build a decentralized system that uses something like 100 000% extra energy compared to what a central database would use to store and process same data, then your solution is environmentally unacceptable no matter how you were planning to produce that energy.
    tzervoGdemamiScotTorval
     
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    Scot said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    I am afraid 74% of your post sounds like tosh, no disrespect intend. If you are an organisation or person making money out of Bitcoin, a green tax would be applied to your profits. Now many of those who mine Cryptocurrency could be below the tax threshold or age for the country concerned which is fine. An estimate of that could be made and those who do pay would pay more tax. Such a tax should be proportionate, for example it should be no where near the tax level applied to using energy from an energy company as we are talking about less than 1%.

    I tend to find defenders of CC who like yourself will fall on their sword for it, are all miners themselves, good luck with that but don't let you future depend on something so potentially volatile.
    I find that people who speak so absolute about btc or any crypto don’t actually know anything about it. They just hear what news outlets say without learning anything about the tech on their own. 

    I’m not a miner, don’t know or care what “tosh” is. I’ve simply taken the time to educate myself on the subject and recommend you all do the same before spouting nonsense to others. 

    Vrika said:
    Scot said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    I am afraid 74% of your post sounds like tosh, no disrespect intend. If you are an organisation or person making money out of Bitcoin, a green tax would be applied to your profits. Now many of those who mine Cryptocurrency could be below the tax threshold or age for the country concerned which is fine. An estimate of that could be made and those who do pay would pay more tax. Such a tax should be proportionate, for example it should be no where near the tax level applied to using energy from an energy company as we are talking about less than 1%.

    I tend to find defenders of CC who like yourself will fall on their sword for it, are all miners themselves, good luck with that but don't let you future depend on something so potentially volatile.
    I think in here it's not really even question of how much of Bitcoin is actually produced with green energy.

    Energy must both be saved and produced with eco-friendlier methods. Neither is good enough solution alone.

    So if you've build a decentralized system that uses something like 100 000% extra energy compared to what a central database would use to store and process same data, then your solution is environmentally unacceptable no matter how you were planning to produce that energy.
    It doesn’t. Btc doesnt even use a sliver of energy compared to the banking systems and it never sleeps and you are in total control of what you own. If you’re truly interested then invest the time in educating yourself. Speculating and making up fake numbers means nothing.  
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,126
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    All it takes is one major government announcing that they're going to launch a 51% attack on it and it will all go *poof* faster than Enron.
    Nonsense. 
    Any mined cryptocurrency will become unusable if someone launches a 51% attack on it.  The great weakness of "proof of work" is that if anyone proves that they're doing more work than everyone else together, then the system is designed to believe whatever the group that holds 51%+ of mining capacity claims is true about future transactions.

    The usual defense against that is that if you own a large fraction of the world's bitcoins, then you don't want to wreck the currency and destroy the value.  That doesn't work for a government coming in with the express intent of destroying Bitcoin.

    In order for a government to launch a successful 51% attack, they wouldn't have to steal all of the coins or shut down the servers.  All that they'd need to do is to create enough chaos that no one else could use the system.  Bitcoin would have a reliable record of who owned what before the 51% attack started, but no way for anyone to transfer currency after that point in time.

    It wouldn't take a broad conspiracy among governments, either.  The government of South Korea cutting a deal with Samsung to design and build ASICs would be enough to end Bitcoin forcibly, without regard to what the rest of the world does, and there would be absolutely nothing that miners could do about it.  Quite a few other governments could do it, too, if so inclined; South Korea is just an arbitrary example.

    And if that's all that it would take to bring Bitcoin to a swift end, quite a few other cryptocurrencies would die a whole lot more easily.
    A 51% attack would allow at most a double spend, but would be discovered. Any hysteria around a 51% attack is unfounded. It’s ridiculous. 
    A double spend singular?  A 51% attack would allow the attacker to double spend or revert others' transactions at will, anytime they pleased, and indefinitely.  If you've got most of the world's mining capacity, you control which transactions make it into the blockchain.

    The thing about it is that in order to destabilize the system, you don't have to shut it down entirely.  Suppose that you're a vendor and know that if you get paid by method A, about 10% of the time, the transaction gets reverted and you're out the money.  If you get paid by method B, you reliably get to keep the money.  For how long after you figure that out do you continue to accept payment by method A?

    All that a government has to do to kill Bitcoin is to turn it into method A.  You don't have to stop all of the transactions.  You just have to revert enough for people to lose faith in it and switch to something else.  But if you've got most of the world's mining capacity, you could mess with nearly all of the transactions.
    GdemamiTorval
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,871
    Vrika said:
    Scot said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    I am afraid 74% of your post sounds like tosh, no disrespect intend. If you are an organisation or person making money out of Bitcoin, a green tax would be applied to your profits. Now many of those who mine Cryptocurrency could be below the tax threshold or age for the country concerned which is fine. An estimate of that could be made and those who do pay would pay more tax. Such a tax should be proportionate, for example it should be no where near the tax level applied to using energy from an energy company as we are talking about less than 1%.

    I tend to find defenders of CC who like yourself will fall on their sword for it, are all miners themselves, good luck with that but don't let you future depend on something so potentially volatile.
    I think in here it's not really even question of how much of Bitcoin is actually produced with green energy.

    Energy must both be saved and produced with eco-friendlier methods. Neither is good enough solution alone.

    So if you've build a decentralized system that uses something like 100 000% extra energy compared to what a central database would use to store and process same data, then your solution is environmentally unacceptable no matter how you were planning to produce that energy.
    It doesn’t. Btc doesnt even use a sliver of energy compared to the banking systems and it never sleeps and you are in total control of what you own. If you’re truly interested then invest the time in educating yourself. Speculating and making up fake numbers means nothing.  
    If banking were to use as much energy as bitcoin, our credit card transactions alone would use about 24 times as much energy as mankind currently produces.


    Numbers used for this:
     -Bitcoin energy consumption: 0.78% global consumption, taken from Cleffy's numbers earlier this thread
     -Number of credit card transactions: 1 010 000 000 a day, taken from cardrates.com:
       https://www.cardrates.com/advice/number-of-credit-card-transactions-per-day-year/#worldwide
    -Number of bitcoin transactions: average 330 000 a day in December 2020, taken from Google

    And calculations based on those numbers: 1 010 000 000 / 330 000 = 3061 credit card transactions for each bitcoin transaction.
    3061 * 0.78% = 2 388% of global energy consumption


    ScotGdemamiQuizzicalTorval
     
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 15,337
    edited May 16
    Vrika said:
    Vrika said:
    Scot said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    I am afraid 74% of your post sounds like tosh, no disrespect intend. If you are an organisation or person making money out of Bitcoin, a green tax would be applied to your profits. Now many of those who mine Cryptocurrency could be below the tax threshold or age for the country concerned which is fine. An estimate of that could be made and those who do pay would pay more tax. Such a tax should be proportionate, for example it should be no where near the tax level applied to using energy from an energy company as we are talking about less than 1%.

    I tend to find defenders of CC who like yourself will fall on their sword for it, are all miners themselves, good luck with that but don't let you future depend on something so potentially volatile.
    I think in here it's not really even question of how much of Bitcoin is actually produced with green energy.

    Energy must both be saved and produced with eco-friendlier methods. Neither is good enough solution alone.

    So if you've build a decentralized system that uses something like 100 000% extra energy compared to what a central database would use to store and process same data, then your solution is environmentally unacceptable no matter how you were planning to produce that energy.
    It doesn’t. Btc doesnt even use a sliver of energy compared to the banking systems and it never sleeps and you are in total control of what you own. If you’re truly interested then invest the time in educating yourself. Speculating and making up fake numbers means nothing.  
    If banking were to use as much energy as bitcoin, our credit card transactions alone would use about 24 times as much energy as mankind currently produces.


    Numbers used for this:
     -Bitcoin energy consumption: 0.78% global consumption, taken from Cleffy's numbers earlier this thread
     -Number of credit card transactions: 1 010 000 000 a day, taken from cardrates.com:
       https://www.cardrates.com/advice/number-of-credit-card-transactions-per-day-year/#worldwide
    -Number of bitcoin transactions: average 330 000 a day in December 2020, taken from Google

    And calculations based on those numbers: 1 010 000 000 / 330 000 = 3061 credit card transactions for each bitcoin transaction.
    3061 * 0.78% = 2 388% of global energy consumption
    Oh dear, we already have someone saying we should "educate ourselves" in other words 'think like I do'. We can argue the figures, the fact remains if cryptocurrency is taking nearly one percent of the worlds energy then transactions should include a green tax. I realise for many this will not be popular but then taxes never are, I speak out against them myself, but hear think it would be most appropriate.

    As this borders on political and I don't think we should use this forum for such I will say no more.
    GdemamiTorval
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    Scot said:
    Vrika said:
    Vrika said:
    Scot said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    I am afraid 74% of your post sounds like tosh, no disrespect intend. If you are an organisation or person making money out of Bitcoin, a green tax would be applied to your profits. Now many of those who mine Cryptocurrency could be below the tax threshold or age for the country concerned which is fine. An estimate of that could be made and those who do pay would pay more tax. Such a tax should be proportionate, for example it should be no where near the tax level applied to using energy from an energy company as we are talking about less than 1%.

    I tend to find defenders of CC who like yourself will fall on their sword for it, are all miners themselves, good luck with that but don't let you future depend on something so potentially volatile.
    I think in here it's not really even question of how much of Bitcoin is actually produced with green energy.

    Energy must both be saved and produced with eco-friendlier methods. Neither is good enough solution alone.

    So if you've build a decentralized system that uses something like 100 000% extra energy compared to what a central database would use to store and process same data, then your solution is environmentally unacceptable no matter how you were planning to produce that energy.
    It doesn’t. Btc doesnt even use a sliver of energy compared to the banking systems and it never sleeps and you are in total control of what you own. If you’re truly interested then invest the time in educating yourself. Speculating and making up fake numbers means nothing.  
    If banking were to use as much energy as bitcoin, our credit card transactions alone would use about 24 times as much energy as mankind currently produces.


    Numbers used for this:
     -Bitcoin energy consumption: 0.78% global consumption, taken from Cleffy's numbers earlier this thread
     -Number of credit card transactions: 1 010 000 000 a day, taken from cardrates.com:
       https://www.cardrates.com/advice/number-of-credit-card-transactions-per-day-year/#worldwide
    -Number of bitcoin transactions: average 330 000 a day in December 2020, taken from Google

    And calculations based on those numbers: 1 010 000 000 / 330 000 = 3061 credit card transactions for each bitcoin transaction.
    3061 * 0.78% = 2 388% of global energy consumption
    Oh dear, we already have someone saying we should "educate ourselves" in other words 'think like I do'. We can argue the figures, the fact remains if cryptocurrency is taking nearly one percent of the worlds energy then transactions should include a green tax. I realise for many this will not be popular but then taxes never are, I speak out against them myself, but hear think it would be most appropriate.

    As this borders on political and I don't think we should use this forum for such I will say no more.
    I can tell when people are convinced and arguing doesn’t matter. I have no interesting in wasting my time trying to convince those that think they know everything that they’re completely wrong. The only thing I’ll do is tell them so and the smart ones who care about not being wrong will continue to learn more on their own.

    Like you, “Oh dear, we already have someone saying we should “educate ourselves” in other words ‘think like I do’.” - This is proof you don’t care and you want to win an argument. Childish.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 23,126
    Vrika said:
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    All it takes is one major government announcing that they're going to launch a 51% attack on it and it will all go *poof* faster than Enron.
    Nonsense. 
    Any mined cryptocurrency will become unusable if someone launches a 51% attack on it.  The great weakness of "proof of work" is that if anyone proves that they're doing more work than everyone else together, then the system is designed to believe whatever the group that holds 51%+ of mining capacity claims is true about future transactions.

    The usual defense against that is that if you own a large fraction of the world's bitcoins, then you don't want to wreck the currency and destroy the value.  That doesn't work for a government coming in with the express intent of destroying Bitcoin.

    In order for a government to launch a successful 51% attack, they wouldn't have to steal all of the coins or shut down the servers.  All that they'd need to do is to create enough chaos that no one else could use the system.  Bitcoin would have a reliable record of who owned what before the 51% attack started, but no way for anyone to transfer currency after that point in time.

    It wouldn't take a broad conspiracy among governments, either.  The government of South Korea cutting a deal with Samsung to design and build ASICs would be enough to end Bitcoin forcibly, without regard to what the rest of the world does, and there would be absolutely nothing that miners could do about it.  Quite a few other governments could do it, too, if so inclined; South Korea is just an arbitrary example.

    And if that's all that it would take to bring Bitcoin to a swift end, quite a few other cryptocurrencies would die a whole lot more easily.
    A 51% attack would allow at most a double spend, but would be discovered. Any hysteria around a 51% attack is unfounded. It’s ridiculous. 
    It's not unfounded.

    However governments usually do not do that kind of thing. They don't publicly sabotage an activity unless it's something clearly criminal, and a 51% attack could not be done stealthily either.

    If a government wants to get rid of crypto, they'll just outlaw its use to everything within their jurisdiction and that's it.
    You're right that governments usually don't do what I explained.  And that's really what people who hold mined cryptocurrencies are banking on:  that no major government will ever do that.

    You're also right that a 51% attack couldn't be done stealthily, but my point is that it wouldn't need to be done stealthily.  If you're only trying to destroy a cryptocurrency and not to steal it, you don't need to be stealthy about it.  To the contrary, the more noise, the better.  If you can convince people that you're going to launch a 51% attack that ruins the currency, you can create a panic that destroys the currency without needing to actually follow through with the attack.

    So long as mined cryptocurrencies are inconsequential, governments won't bother trying to destroy them.  But if they're inconsequential, then why does this thread exist?  Would you bet that no government will ever feel the need to take out Bitcoin if it becomes popular enough to be a serious threat to replace that government's own currency?  Because the only way you can justify mined cryptocurrencies being worth in the ballpark of $2 trillion and expecting it to go up further is if you seriously believe that they're going to replace traditional currencies.
    Gdemami
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,003
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    Quizzical said:
    74% of bitcoin is already running on renewable energy and proof of work is superior for decentralization which is a necessary component.

    It's not going anywhere.

    Graphics cards are inferior to asics by a big margin.
    All it takes is one major government announcing that they're going to launch a 51% attack on it and it will all go *poof* faster than Enron.
    Nonsense. 
    Any mined cryptocurrency will become unusable if someone launches a 51% attack on it.  The great weakness of "proof of work" is that if anyone proves that they're doing more work than everyone else together, then the system is designed to believe whatever the group that holds 51%+ of mining capacity claims is true about future transactions.

    The usual defense against that is that if you own a large fraction of the world's bitcoins, then you don't want to wreck the currency and destroy the value.  That doesn't work for a government coming in with the express intent of destroying Bitcoin.

    In order for a government to launch a successful 51% attack, they wouldn't have to steal all of the coins or shut down the servers.  All that they'd need to do is to create enough chaos that no one else could use the system.  Bitcoin would have a reliable record of who owned what before the 51% attack started, but no way for anyone to transfer currency after that point in time.

    It wouldn't take a broad conspiracy among governments, either.  The government of South Korea cutting a deal with Samsung to design and build ASICs would be enough to end Bitcoin forcibly, without regard to what the rest of the world does, and there would be absolutely nothing that miners could do about it.  Quite a few other governments could do it, too, if so inclined; South Korea is just an arbitrary example.

    And if that's all that it would take to bring Bitcoin to a swift end, quite a few other cryptocurrencies would die a whole lot more easily.
    A 51% attack would allow at most a double spend, but would be discovered. Any hysteria around a 51% attack is unfounded. It’s ridiculous. 
    A double spend singular?  A 51% attack would allow the attacker to double spend or revert others' transactions at will, anytime they pleased, and indefinitely.  If you've got most of the world's mining capacity, you control which transactions make it into the blockchain.

    The thing about it is that in order to destabilize the system, you don't have to shut it down entirely.  Suppose that you're a vendor and know that if you get paid by method A, about 10% of the time, the transaction gets reverted and you're out the money.  If you get paid by method B, you reliably get to keep the money.  For how long after you figure that out do you continue to accept payment by method A?

    All that a government has to do to kill Bitcoin is to turn it into method A.  You don't have to stop all of the transactions.  You just have to revert enough for people to lose faith in it and switch to something else.  But if you've got most of the world's mining capacity, you could mess with nearly all of the transactions.
    They would be very lucky to reverse their own transaction, but could never reverse anyone else's transaction. It would be short lived and the protocol would adapt and correct. 

    I can tell you really haven't researched much at all about the bitcoin protocol.
  • RungarRungar Member RarePosts: 506
    The central bankers only let you have "DECENTRALIZED" bitcoin because they invented it as a precursor to a government backed digital currency. 

    Once they milk it for all its worth they will destroy it, you will cry as you lose all your money because the real gangsters are long gone by then, and they will bring in what they wanted all along. 

    A CENTRALIZED government backed (and thus insured) digital currency. Problem, reaction, solution. Same as always.

    I hope they pull the plug soon so you guys can get your graphics cards :)

     
    GdemamiSensai
    .23 of a second to midnight
  • cheyanecheyane Member LegendaryPosts: 7,975
    I am praying my PC does not die it is 6 years old.
    RidelynnTorvalMendel
    Chamber of Chains
Sign In or Register to comment.