this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
92 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37592 readers
181 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kbal@fedia.io 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (17 children)

Other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum, which are far more energy efficient than Bitcoin

Calling those that don't depend on proof-of-work "more energy efficient" is understating it to the point of being dishonest. The difference is not that they're more efficient in any conventional way. It's that they don't have the amazing bitcoin feature of relying for their operation on the practice of deliberately wasting enormous amounts of energy for the purpose of being able to prove that you've wasted enormous amounts of energy.

All the way through the cryptocurrency crash which the average reader of headlines might've thought had put an end to it by now, the bitcoin network has kept on burning up absurd amounts of power.

[–] sxan@midwest.social 11 points 1 month ago (5 children)

the practice of deliberately wasting enormous amounts of energy for the purpose of being able to prove that you've wasted enormous amounts of energy.

C'mon, that's being disingenuous. Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use. A consequence of proof-of-work is wasted energy, but a focus on low-power modalities and throttling have been developed in the intervening years. The prevailing paradigm at the time was, "your C/GPU is going to be burning energy anyway, you may as well do something with it."

It was a poor design decision, but it wasn't a malicious one like you make it sound. You may as well accuse the inventors of the internal combustion engine of designing it for the express purpose of creating pollution.

[–] ericjmorey@beehaw.org 14 points 1 month ago

Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.

It didn't take long before people saw that energy was a major factor in cost of operations of the network.

It was a poor design decision

One that is fiercely defended by people who invested into the implementation. So it may not have started with it being anticipated, but not it is and people are actively choosing to perpetuate this use of energy.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)