• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

psionl0 said:
Why not also chuck in buzz words like relativity, quantum mechanics, gravity etc while we are about trying to sound intelligent? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Because thermodynamics is what is relevant here. It describes how energy is transformed to heat to do work. The aim back then was to minimise the losses of energy. The aim of bitcoin is to not quite maximise the loss of energy, but they do a good job wasting an incredible amount of it.
 
a_unique_person said:
Because thermodynamics is what is relevant here. It describes how energy is transformed to heat to do work. The aim back then was to minimise the losses of energy. The aim of bitcoin is to not quite maximise the loss of energy, but they do a good job wasting an incredible amount of it.
Click to expand...
If your argument is that the number of coins generated per block is related to the energy used in mining then you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

If not then you still don't know what you are talking about since I have always agreed that bitcoin mining wastes energy.
 
Number of coins generated per block is not related to the energy. But more work is rewarded with bigger reward. So there is competition of computational power, and that's always easiest to get with more energy.
Energy price is important limit though .. at my home computer the energy would take like 50% of the reward. If the electricity costed twice as much, it wouldn't be profitable at all.
So higher energy prices moves the mining to countries with cheap energy, or it makes miners to generate their own cheap energy (typically solar).
Mining could also be useful for managing waste energy .. and with solar and wind power there is ton of that at times.
 
Last edited:
Okay Bitcoin Brodudes so the fact that to make a single bitcoin now takes the energy to power an average American home for six weeks or that Bitcoin production now accounts for more energy usage than many countries is... what? A lie? Just something you'll conveniently not address?

"Bitcoins are energy wasteful" is one of those pesky "facts" things you don't get to just not care about and remain intellectually honest.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
"Bitcoins are energy wasteful" is one of those pesky "facts" things you don't get to just not care about and remain intellectually honest.
Click to expand...
Who "just not cares"? This is the reason why research into proof of stake continues. Ethereum is not quite there yet but has expended a lot of effort into making it so and isn't about to jettison its efforts.
 
psionl0 said:
That said, changes to the bitcoin protocol do happen and it isn't impossible that the bitcoin community might accept a change to the energy intensive nature that it is mined. This would more likely be a hard fork though.

More likely, another crypto will be designed that is not so limited in its use as a currency and gains wider acceptance.
Click to expand...

Does a "Hard Fork" change the existing bitcoin scheme, or does it effectively start a new variation that coexists with the old? Serious question, I don't think I know the answer to that.

I'm a little concerned that somehow there will always remain an incentive to go through the intensive effort (and energy use) to produce the original kind of bitcoin.
 
psionl0 said:
Who "just not cares"? This is the reason why research into proof of stake continues. Ethereum is not quite there yet but has expended a lot of effort into making it so and isn't about to jettison its efforts.
Click to expand...

A whopping if.

If proof of stake becomes the norm and people turn off their coal powered mining rigs, then the criticism of Bitcoin and most other popular crypto coins and their children being environmental dumpster fires will no longer be valid.

I'm not optimistic. As it stands now, crypto is a blight to humanity.
 
psionl0 said:
If your argument is that the number of coins generated per block is related to the energy used in mining then you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

If not then you still don't know what you are talking about since I have always agreed that bitcoin mining wastes energy.
Click to expand...

The relevant fact that you are trying to disguise with strawmen and red herrings is that for any individual the amount of bitcoin you you can generate is dependent on how much energy they invest.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove rule 0 breach
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lomiller said:
The relevant fact that you are trying to disguise with strawmen and red herrings is that for any individual the amount of bitcoin you you can generate is dependent on how much energy they invest.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to match quoted post
.
Click to expand...
As it stands, bitcoin mining is a method of inefficiently converting fossil fuels into carbon dioxide and data.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lomiller said:
The relevant fact that you are trying to disguise with strawmen and red herrings is that for any individual the amount of bitcoin you you can generate is dependent on how much energy they invest. Trying to bring in irrelevant factoids like the number of coins generated per block just tells us that you are either lying or just not bright enough to follow the nuance of the issue.
Click to expand...
Individuals don't "generate" bitcoins. They mine blocks. The amount of energy required to mine a block doesn't change how many new bitcoins are contained within the block. That is why buzz-words like "thermodynamics" are a complete red herring.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gnome said:
Does a "Hard Fork" change the existing bitcoin scheme, or does it effectively start a new variation that coexists with the old? Serious question, I don't think I know the answer to that.
Click to expand...
There has been hard forks before. For example, Bitcoin Cash. It is quite conceivable that when proof of stake becomes as feasible as proof of work, that a hard fork of bitcoin will use the new validation method.

gnome said:
I'm a little concerned that somehow there will always remain an incentive to go through the intensive effort (and energy use) to produce the original kind of bitcoin.
Click to expand...
Whether a hard fork becomes the main bitcoin or the original still continues to be used depends on the market which is unpredictable.
 
psionl0 said:
Individuals don't "generate" bitcoins. They mine blocks. The amount of energy required to mine a block doesn't change how many new bitcoins are contained within the block. That is why buzz-words like "thermodynamics" are a complete red herring.

Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edited for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...


The reference I quoted used Watts/Transaction. Your pedantry doesn't respond to the actual question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a_unique_person said:
The reference I quoted used Watts/Transaction. Your pedantry doesn't respond to the actual question.
Click to expand...
Sure, you can divide the total energy spent on mining by the total number of transactions in the same time period but that has absolutely nothing to do with the scarcity of bitcoin. You need to compartmentalize better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom