(Opinion) Crypto mining is nonessential and is killing our climate
Let's spare ourselves the analogies of crypto mining consuming amounts of energy comparable to small nations, and realize the fact that it consumes a tremendous amount of electricity. This, as we all sit here in the sweltering heat, should make us angry.
I propose that, in theory, we have mined all the crypto we need. Further mining will only empower those with the means to continue mining, which is contrary to the objectives of a distributed block chain, particularly a zero-trust currency. Look no further than the large donations being made by Andreessen and Horowitz to their politician of choice (Donald Trump), mostly because they believe his administration will give them more power with crypto.
Mining crypto is really just a gamified incentive structure intended to motivate sys admins to run nodes on the network. These nodes have become so expensive to operate, the power over the network has collapsed onto a few nodes ... the network effect.
One possible solution is to bundle small transactions into a settlement period, similar to trading markets in the classical financial system. Then these transactions can be settled at the end of the settlement period (24 hours, for example). The problem is that we would need some central authority to collect and bundle transactions, which would require some level of trust.
Is there a centralization/trust tradeoff to be made here against centralization of power and climate damage?
28 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 83.8 ms ] threadLike what?
I used to work in crypto. The only use case I found was an extremely easy way to create and trade unregistered securities and trade them in unregulated exchanges.
I'm thinking of use cases like distributed domain name lookup systems, identification systems, social networks.
Home heating.
His book Neptune's Brood revolves around cryptocurrency.
And if you're worried about the energy usage of crypto, wait until you hear about this AI thing...
Both of them are stupid energy/water sucking machines. I'm kind of curious how much emissions would fall if we just outlawed crypto, AI, and private jets, because those seem like three large things that don't particularly matter to normal people.
According to google searches, chatGPT has something 100-200 million people using it monthly. IDK how accurate that is, but even if it's off by a magnitude, that is something that is clearly useful to normal people
What about this AWS thing, Netflix thing, Google Datacenter thing, ... aren't all these things chewing up electrons also?
Also, didn't the big coins (ethereum) move to proof of stake anyway?
And proof of stake consumes less energy, but still significant.
Admittedly, neither does Bitcoin, what with every next generation getting to mine 32x less than the previous one. But PoW with a fixed block reward would come as close as possible.
I don't think Ethereum uses excessive amounts of energy unless you also think data centers are bad in general. The consensus algorithms are more complicated than Bitcoin. Ethereum validators will lose part of their stake if caught cheating.