$5 Million Campaign Aims to Make Bitcoin More Energy Efficient

[Raevenlord]

A new, $5 million-backed campaign aims to increase awareness for Bitcoin's elevated energy expenditure - and aims to put pressure on a technological change that reduces its energy consumption and carbon impact. Funded by Ripple Labs co-founder Chris Larsen, the campaign, titled "Change the Code, Not the Climate" aims to increase awareness of technological solutions that could replace Bitcoin's expensive Proof of Work security model. A model that has seen power usage for transactions on the cryptocurrency hit historic highs in 2021, averaging an estimated 204 TWh power consumption for the year - around the same energy consumption as that of 70 million-citizen Thailand.

The campaign particularly calls for a change towards Proof of Stake, a transaction validation method that could reduce Bitcoin's energy consumption footprint by 99%. Of course, actually implementing the changes themselves on the live Bitcoin blockchain wouldn't be so easy as simply flicking a metaphorical code switch: Ethereum's implementation of such a transition has taken years already - and this with a more modern, more flexible blockchain. Considering the success of implementation for smaller, more technical aspects of Bitcoin mining - such as Blockchain rewards - has already led to forks of the cryptocurrency. One can only imagine what would happen following such a fundamental shift in technology, blockchain security - and miner payout.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Legacy-ZA]

Or... Simply use something that isn't BItcoin or ETH.

 

[agent_x007]

Someone should force NV and AMD to limit it's standard vGPU between 0,7V - 0,8V point (+ actual base frequency, to keep a reasonable yield level), with "boosting" option for those wanting highest performance with higher vGPU and power usage (along with driver notification).
I think this could get a 20% (per card) reduction of power usage during load.

Making things faster is nice, but please keep it reasonable (675W per GPU [PCIe + HPConnector] is ludicrous).

 

[Valantar]

Or... Simply use something that isn't BItcoin or ETH.

As if that makes any meaningful difference?

Someone should force NV and AMD to limit it's standard vGPU between 0,7V - 0,8V point (+ actual base frequency, to keep a reasonable yield level), with "boosting" option for those wanting highest performance with higher vGPU and power usage (along with driver notification).
I think this could get a 20% (per card) reduction of power usage during load.

Making things faster is nice, but please keep it reasonable (675W per GPU [PCIe + HPConnector] is ludicrous).

You know that Bitcoin hasn't been mined on GPUs for about half a decade, right? It's way too expensive. ASICs are the only thing even remotely profitable for Bitcoin.


As for this problem: there's a simple solution, that requires zero technological innovation, and can be implemented today! It's called a ban. The world really has no need for more ways for the wealthy to gamble and entrench their wealth, nor more modes of money laundering for organized crime. And at that environmental cost? Even strict regulation would be too weak. As for the supposed liberatory potential of crypto: it's been more than a decade now, and other than making a tiny group of people a bit more wealthy, crypto has done nothing more than further entrench the power of the already wealthy, allowing them another avenue towards avoiding fair taxation and avoiding responsibility for their role in society. This mode of libertarian "freedom" is the freedom for the powerful to exploit and prey upon the less wealthy, and has no mechanisms to avoid this whatsoever. It is fundamentally and intrinsically naïve to the point of being massively destructive and harmful both to individuals, societies and our planet. If that isn't worthy of banning, I don't know what is.

 

[Sandbo]

Time to consider Chia, or simply go PoS?

 

[jimmyxxx]

The problem of switching from PoW to PoS is way more complex than what it looks.
Part of the implicit price of bitcoins is the electric and hardware cost to make the network run, if you switch to PoS the price might not hold very well.
And the second one is the consensus. If there is no consensus to switch into PoS, there will be a ton of hard forks. Miners interest is to keep mining, Investors and Bitcoin Holders interest is to raise the value, and both will most likely prefer PoW over PoS, unless the PoS is set to produce the same returns that PoW is providing.

 

[ymbaja]

Or... Simply use something that isn't BItcoin or ETH.

Like maybe.. and I’m just spitballing here…Ripple?

 

[rippie]

kinda funny,
they say the intention is to make it more energy efficient.
if you change to proof of stake it not only does that, but also changes the economic model, and compromises the network security

or at least come up with an idea that does not change the economic/tokenomics model of the coin.
understand that proof of work is usefull as it costs effort/$$ and adds to the intrinsic value, providing a price floor for the coin.
and above all provides infinite security to the network.

as opposed to proof-of-stake costs nothing, and the people doing nothing get rewarded, and what mechanism provides sufficient security?
you should reward actors of the network that provide useful work.
such asssss:
-securing the network
-facilitating transactions
-...

you want proof of stake? create your own damn (shiiit)coin malaka.

 

[Valantar]

kinda funny,
they say the intention is to make it more energy efficient.
if you change to proof of stake it not only does that, but also changes the economic model, and compromises the network security

or at least come up with an idea that does not change the economic/tokenomics model of the coin.
understand that proof of work is usefull as it costs effort/$$ and adds to the intrinsic value, providing a price floor for the coin.
and above all provides infinite security to the network.

as opposed to proof-of-stake costs nothing, and the people doing nothing get rewarded, and what mechanism provides sufficient security?
you should reward actors of the network that provide useful work.
such asssss:
-securing the network
-facilitating transactions
-...

you want proof of stake? create your own damn (shiiit)coin malaka.

You're mostly right about this being nonsensical in many ways - especially in the main interest of people involved being in the continued rise in value and continued viability as a tradeable asset of the coins - though security? That's really not a thing. The prevalence of scams and all the forked coins due to disagreements on whether to roll back stolen/scammed transactions or not speaks volumes of the "security" of PoW blockchain tech. Heck, the power to decide literally anything about Bitcoin is consolidated in the hands of a handful of large-scale miners. The massive consolidation (and the complete lack of mechanisms to avoid this) in blockchain tech entirely undermines the supposed security of the technology. Not to mention the security issues of being unable to patch bugs in smart contracts, of people literally malware in other people's wallets, etc., etc.

 

[rippie]

You make good points esteemed friend, however:

The security aspect i meant, is chain security, which is where all the energy goes into.
being scammed is somebodies local security, or lack thereof. e.g by entrusting some scriptkiddy exchange with your keys / being hacked on exchange or on your laptop, or even harddrive failure.

If you look at the Nr #2 coin by marketcap, that one actually rolled back the chain multiple times due to bugs, but they are improving. (hence its price is not terrible)

The point on miners having massive power, i am not in agreement with.
last time the miners wanted to achieve something other actors prevented it, consensus said no, and BCH/BSV sprouted. Shows that miners do not have the suggested decision-power.

I do aggree BTC has limited features on lvl1, but lvl2 is developing and showing promise (lightning netwrok: transaction count scalability, automatic rollbacks) those are the features that do exist, seperately from the main chain.

Any change will require consensus from all actors, which is indeed a really hard thing to achieve now that the value is high and stakeholders are many: true decentralisation.
So most likely bitcoin (lvl1) will be the last one to develop new features,
due to the fact that any risk to the operation of the chain and its security will have (by now) the potential of causing billions worth of damages.

People _trust_ it with their money more than any other chain, hence the price,
but beware it started as a financiel experiment, and still is... :+)

 

[lexluthermiester]

Or... Simply use something that isn't BItcoin or ETH.

This. The world needs to use real money.

 

[kapone32]

The problem of switching from PoW to PoS is way more complex than what it looks.
Part of the implicit price of bitcoins is the electric and hardware cost to make the network run, if you switch to PoS the price might not hold very well.
And the second one is the consensus. If there is no consensus to switch into PoS, there will be a ton of hard forks. Miners interest is to keep mining, Investors and Bitcoin Holders interest is to raise the value, and both will most likely prefer PoW over PoS, unless the PoS is set to produce the same returns that PoW is providing.

I honestly feel that Nicehash is main reason we have not seen that. I am not mad though. There is no way I would have been able to afford a $1500 GPU without having a way of recouping the costs. My Goal for my mining opreration is to have them running off 3 Windmills.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

Lol, miners are greedy and don't give a rats about the climate. Unlike folding, they do it to make money, not help the sick, needy or poor.

As if that makes any meaningful difference?


You know that Bitcoin hasn't been mined on GPUs for about half a decade, right? It's way too expensive. ASICs are the only thing even remotely profitable for Bitcoin.


As for this problem: there's a simple solution, that requires zero technological innovation, and can be implemented today! It's called a ban. The world really has no need for more ways for the wealthy to gamble and entrench their wealth, nor more modes of money laundering for organized crime. And at that environmental cost? Even strict regulation would be too weak. As for the supposed liberatory potential of crypto: it's been more than a decade now, and other than making a tiny group of people a bit more wealthy, crypto has done nothing more than further entrench the power of the already wealthy, allowing them another avenue towards avoiding fair taxation and avoiding responsibility for their role in society. This mode of libertarian "freedom" is the freedom for the powerful to exploit and prey upon the less wealthy, and has no mechanisms to avoid this whatsoever. It is fundamentally and intrinsically naïve to the point of being massively destructive and harmful both to individuals, societies and our planet. If that isn't worthy of banning, I don't know what is.

Hear hear

 

[droid-I]

There is always someones back skin to beat, seems, mining virtual currency just makes it worse. otoh, how much real evidence do folders feel they get for their hard working computers folding task?
There are many more efficient ways to help s n p.

 

[Valantar]

You make good points esteemed friend, however:

The security aspect i meant, is chain security, which is where all the energy goes into.
being scammed is somebodies local security, or lack thereof. e.g by entrusting some scriptkiddy exchange with your keys / being hacked on exchange or on your laptop, or even harddrive failure.

If you look at the Nr #2 coin by marketcap, that one actually rolled back the chain multiple times due to bugs, but they are improving. (hence its price is not terrible)

The point on miners having massive power, i am not in agreement with.
last time the miners wanted to achieve something other actors prevented it, consensus said no, and BCH/BSV sprouted. Shows that miners do not have the suggested decision-power.

That's a misconception - having power does not necessarily mean exerting it. As you say, anyone invested in crypto is mainly interested in it maintaining or increasing its value. For larger actors, that means not rocking the boat, as crypto is more than volatile enough already - large scale actors actively blocking a transition to PoS, for example, would likely send valuations plummeting. So instead they work quietly, stalling and complicating the transition to the highest degree possible without being seen as actively doing so. Also, it's worth pointing out that the majority of deciding power being in a handful of hands doesn't necessarily mean those hands are coordinated. They most likely have common interests, but beyond that they're competitors. I definitely wouldn't put it past large-scale miners to form some form of cartel to keep valuations high, but thanks to them not actually selling anything (other than their "money", but mostly not even that), cartels would have far less impact than in most sectors.

And, of course, these actors are large and wealthy enough that they can easily propagandize their views and rope in low-level dupes that support their stance. Online advertising and astroturfing is cheap when you're a billionaire. And they can easily dodge responsibility by attributing the failure to shift to PoS to "it's too difficult to get a consensus" - which both serves to hide their power and serve their long-term goals of not rocking the boat.

I do aggree BTC has limited features on lvl1, but lvl2 is developing and showing promise (lightning netwrok: transaction count scalability, automatic rollbacks) those are the features that do exist, seperately from the main chain.

The problem is that the different "levels" here inherently invalidate the arguments for blockchain being a viable tech for these purposes in the first place. These are band-aid fixes on top of internal hemorrhaging - they make the surface look better, but do nothing to address the core problems. I mean, the very concept of a ledger that can't be edited except with linear rollbacks is a huge issue. Imagine if Visa or Mastercard said "sorry, we had a bug, so all transactions done for the past two days are now reversed" - that would cause economic turmoil on an unprecedented scale, likely bankrupting quite a few businesses and fundamentally undermining all trust in their ability to function as a mediator for transactions. Yet this is a fundamental feature of blockchain. It is stupid. Plain and simple. It's a bad idea. Period. And this is hardly unique - the system is also built on transactions being difficult and resource-intensive as a fundamental feature, after all, which is why this consumes such an insane amount of power compared to anything sensible and workable.

Any change will require consensus from all actors,

But it doesn't. 51% (or really, 50.00000000001%) is enough.

which is indeed a really hard thing to achieve now that the value is high and stakeholders are many: true decentralisation.

But again: this is simply not true.

So, four pools control >50% of all mining resources. That gives those pools the power to do whatever they might want to do, as long as they agree. And you could always argue that some or all of those pools are themselves decentralized (I have no idea, didn't check), but the fact of the matter is that given how riddled the crypto scene is with fraud and scams, there are zero guarantees that any such decentralization will be upheld. Most likely, whoever owns the pool will do what they think serves them best in whatever time frame they care about, even if that means overriding the votes of pool members. There is zero oversight or regulation here, after all, so they can do whatever they want.

So most likely bitcoin (lvl1) will be the last one to develop new features,
due to the fact that any risk to the operation of the chain and its security will have (by now) the potential of causing billions worth of damages.

Exactly. This will be true for literally any "coin" worth anything. Those with money and power will seek to conserve that at any cost. Though of course we might see forks to PoS for those with a lot of wealth wanting a bit more long-term stability (likely driven by medium-sized actors with less power, who feel threatened by the power of the larger ones), though given how the world of investment works, this is hardly likely to happen. And while PoS has the potential to lower the environmental impact somewhat, it also doesn't come close to fixing the fundamental flaws of crypto in general.

 

[trsttte]

As for this problem: there's a simple solution, that requires zero technological innovation, and can be implemented today! It's called a ban. The world really has no need for more ways for the wealthy to gamble and entrench their wealth, nor more modes of money laundering for organized crime. And at that environmental cost? Even strict regulation would be too weak. As for the supposed liberatory potential of crypto: it's been more than a decade now, and other than making a tiny group of people a bit more wealthy, crypto has done nothing more than further entrench the power of the already wealthy, allowing them another avenue towards avoiding fair taxation and avoiding responsibility for their role in society. This mode of libertarian "freedom" is the freedom for the powerful to exploit and prey upon the less wealthy, and has no mechanisms to avoid this whatsoever. It is fundamentally and intrinsically naïve to the point of being massively destructive and harmful both to individuals, societies and our planet. If that isn't worthy of banning, I don't know what is.

It's not that clear cut. The problem with every discussion that touches the crypto topic is everyone is either a crypto bro or a total hater. It's been already proved several times that it's easier and more reliable to launder fiat than crypto for example.

Recently, with the war in Ukraine, it was also a usable vehicle to quickly donate funds to Ukraine (they had the money more or less instantly and some of the defense contractors also accepted to receive payment that way) - of course at the same time it was also very usefull to yet again scam a bunch of people but what can we do, similar stuff happened (and still happens) in the early days of things like homebanking.

Is crypto perfect or the future or whatever? Of course not, but it's not without it's uses. Saying the solution is a complete ban sounds like people afraid of wifi or 5g or any other technology.

 

[Valantar]

It's not that clear cut. The problem with every discussion that touches the crypto topic is everyone is either a crypto bro or a total hater. It's been already proved several times that it's easier and more reliable to launder fiat than crypto for example.

Recently, with the war in Ukraine, it was also a usable vehicle to quickly donate funds to Ukraine (they had the money more or less instantly and some of the defense contractors also accepted to receive payment that way) - of course at the same time it was also very usefull to yet again scam a bunch of people but what can we do, similar stuff happened (and still happens) in the early days of things like homebanking.

Is crypto perfect or the future or whatever? Of course not, but it's not without it's uses. Saying the solution is a complete ban sounds like people afraid of wifi or 5g or any other technology.

That's a nice straw man you've got there. To be clear, comparing reasonable skepticism towards a massively wasteful and harmful technology that has yet to demonstrate a single viable large-scale advantage over existing technologies that lack its massive drawbacks with "people afraid of wifi or 5g" is prototypical bad faith arguing bullshit. Did you honestly think that was an even remotely viable comparison, even for making a rhetorical point? 'Cause all you're achieving is coming off as an asshole. If you want a discussion, at least have the dignity to not call people paranoid tech-averse morons.

 

[Reverb256]

That's a nice straw man you've got there. To be clear, comparing reasonable skepticism towards a massively wasteful and harmful technology that has yet to demonstrate a single viable large-scale advantage over existing technologies that lack its massive drawbacks with "people afraid of wifi or 5g" is prototypical bad faith arguing bullshit. Did you honestly think that was an even remotely viable comparison, even for making a rhetorical point? 'Cause all you're achieving is coming off as an asshole. If you want a discussion, at least have the dignity to not call people paranoid tech-averse morons.

What do you think about the idea of individualized ESG 'social credit' scores enforced through CBDC's?

Bullish for Bitcoin and other permissionless blockchains, right?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

There is always someones back skin to beat, seems, mining virtual currency just makes it worse. otoh, how much real evidence do folders feel they get for their hard working computers folding task?
There are many more efficient ways to help s n p.

Have a look into the research progressed with the help of petaflops worth of individual consumer GPUS @ # F@h, I think it worth a look.

 

[Valantar]

What do you think about the idea of individualized ESG 'social credit' scores enforced through CBDC's?

Bullish for Bitcoin and other permissionless blockchains, right?View attachment 242064

I have absolutely zero idea what you're talking about here, but from a cursory google search that sounds pretty much like bog-standard proto-fascist nonsense that will only become reality if people let the crypto-fascist (yeah, that term has gotten a whole new meaning recently) crowd like Peter Thiel run amok. (Btw, are you insinuating that this is supposed to be a reality in any non-authoritarian part of the world? I'd like to see some proof of that, please.) I.e. the exact same people who are really invested in cryptocurrencies being a continued success. Almost as if rich fascists will take any and all opportunities to gather more wealth and power? Odd, that. The thing is, cryptocurrencies have zero safeguards against anything like this - heck, they encourage the creation of insane incentive systems and gatekeeping based on whatever standards the owner of the next hot crypto platform might come up with. Crypto is by default a system of "freedom" for the wealthy, both in PoW (the more money you have to buy and run mining equipment, the more votes you have) or PoS (the larger your stake - the more money you have invested - the more votes you have), and is based on an ideology so laughably naïve to the workings of power that it's downright shocking that anyone buys into it. Libertarianism, that is. But then, given how much money is poured into PR and spin to make it seem palatable I guess that's sadly inevitable. Again: that's what rich people with a lust for power do: they use their wealth to gain more power, especially in systems lacking safeguards against this.