Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:How much electricity was used last month to min (Score 1) 178 178

Sorry for responding a second time as I didn't realize you were the same person. The bottom line is that you may have been misled into thinking that Proof of Work is the only security mechanism for bitcoin and it will scale indefinitely as an arms race wasting power. This is a fair concern to have but also one that is exaggerated because PoW is only one security mechanism and in the future 99% of transactions will be done either off the chain or through inter-payment channels where there won't be direct payment to fund the "waste of resources" therefore no incentive to fuel a never ending arms race of "wasting electricity". To give you an idea of where we are right now -- there are between 100k -150k Tx per day but this represents only a small fraction of the volume as most volume right now exists "off the chain" and therefore not fueling the arms race of ASICs. In the near future Inter-payment channels will make settlement of on the chain a very small fraction of 1 % of the total volume. Bitcoin is actually much less environmentally dangerous than traditional fiat and payment rails.

Comment: Re:How much electricity was used last month to min (Score 1) 178 178

Economics is already forcing some users to recycle the heat from ASIC's as space heaters and this demand will continue to grow. Additionally, the coinbase reward for mining is slowly being replaced by Tx fees which will continue to grow rapidly especially when sidechains and inter payment channels like the lightning network are scaffolded on top of Bitcoin to really scale bitcoin up from 4-7 transactions per second to over 100k tx per second. These proposals do not depend upon PoW (proof of work... but certainly supplementing security by this mechanism helps secure the network verses pure PoS. ) and upon other means to secure bitcoin like oracles, ricardian contracts , and mutisig. Thus the amount of energy needed for PoW does not need to scale proportionally with the transaction volume and the environmental concerns are wildly exaggerated.

Comment: Re:How much electricity was used last month to min (Score 1) 178 178

Then consider those compute cycles could have been used for Folding@Home and actually helping humanity.

Economics is already forcing some users to recycle the heat from ASIC's as space heaters and this demand will continue to grow. Additionally, the coinbase reward for mining is slowly being replaced by Tx fees which will continue to grow rapidly especially when sidechains and inter payment channels like the lightning network are scaffolded on top of Bitcoin to really scale bitcoin up from 4-7 transactions per second to over 100k tx per second. These proposals do not depend upon PoW (proof of work... but certainly supplementing security by this mechanism helps secure the network verses pure PoS. ) and upon other means to secure bitcoin like oracles, ricardian contracts , and mutisig. Thus the amount of energy needed for PoW does not need to scale proportionally with the transaction volume and the environmental concerns are wildly exaggerated.

Comment: Re:How much electricity was used last month to min (Score 1) 178 178

There is plenty of evidence that most bitcoin mines are moving to use hydroelectric power and geothermal. They aren't doing so out of a sense of environmental altruism , but simply because "greener" power is less expensive. http://gizmodo.com/why-bitcoin... http://www.datacenterknowledge... https://www.cryptocoinsnews.co... http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20... http://www.coindesk.com/my-lif...

Comment: Re:How much electricity was used last month to min (Score 1) 178 178

Yes, that is out of date. It really isn't worth the botnet operators time to mine with CPU's and GPU's these days. They are better off holding the computer hostage with malware like crypto locker which encrypts their hard drive and demands ransom with Greendot cards and bitcoin.

Comment: Re:How much electricity was used last month to min (Score 1) 178 178

Per transaction, or total?

I'm willing to bet that a single Bitcoin costs a whole lot more to produce than a credit card transaction takes to process.

Or to put it another way, if you were to replace the entire existing credit card system with Bitcoin, would it use more or less power than the current system?

---

Or perhaps if you were to be honest about the whole thing... Even with Bitcoin, you still are using the existing system, since very few places take bitcoin and most that do convert it into dollars or euros right away.

So you now have twice as many transactions, once for bitcoin, another for the "old guard" banking system.

Fair point. There are some initial costs to upgrading fintech and creating a fairer form of currency that doesn't rob people with unexpected inflation, bail outs, and bail ins. Even if you prefer inflationary fiat currencies instead of dis-inflationary ones with a planned social contract owned openly by the users you should be grateful that this competition will at least temporarily keep governments and banks slightly more honest.

Comment: Re:Is bitcoin sustainable? (Score 1) 46 46

Yeah but your counter argument doesn't account for the sheer scale of what VISA and the banking system do compared to Bitcoin. OK the banking system uses more electricity, but what is the amortized cost on a per transaction basis? That's the question. Accoring to TFA the answer is VISA is HUGELY more environmentally friendly and cost effective than Bitcoin and, and this is the point, always will be because by design Bitcoin makes it harder to obtain coins depending on how much processing power (energy) is being expended to obtain those coins at any given time.

http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

If all bitcoin machines went solar however, then we might have a different outcome. The practicalities of that, given that Bitcoin assumes distribution of computing power, are not in Bitcoin's favor either.

Proof of work through ASICs is a very good security mechanism as attackers must spend real money on machines and electricty to attack the network and create 2-3 double spends before being caught and shutdown, but not the only method.

Already there are inter-channel payment protocols (https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf and http://impulse.is/impulse.pdf are two examples among many) and off the chain transactions (Coinbase/circle/changetip are a few examples where there is no fee and wildly used). Right now there is ~118k transactions per day - https://blockchain.info/charts... but in reality the number of bitcoin transactions per day is much much higher as those numbers represent on the chain transactions. with the lighting network Bitcoin will be able to scale to higher levels of transactions per day than VISA , and without having to similarity increase the amount of ASIC's because those payment channels use multisig and ricardian contracts to secure while being ultimately backed up by PoW on the main chain.

Additionally, be aware that wasted electricity will start to be recycled as heaters(Whether hot water or space heaters). I already have some friends doing this to save on their heating bills and make money at the same time.

Comment: Re:Is bitcoin sustainable? (Score 1) 46 46

That is insightful.

Thank you. Despite bitcoin being more efficient than traditional payment rails networks, there is some truth to what the article you mention is possibly alluding to. Decentralized network security is indeed expensive and much more costly than a few shared database ledgers. This is especially true for bitcoin at the moment with only 118k transactions per day and the massive overhead being spent to secure those transactions. There are two important reasons for this one must consider:

1) Bitcoin having a market cap of 3.7 billion and having immutable transactions needs to be extra vigilant on protecting the network and ledger from attacks whether coming from gangs of hackers or governments. There are some fixed costs here that are needed to superseded the hashpower of an attack and that once a certain level is reached the network will scale more cheaply.

2) Bitcoin primarily uses PoW(proof of work) as a security mechanism but other protocols are being layered upon it like sidechains and payment channels (lightning network) which dont require more hashing done by ASICs and add other security mechanisms like mutisig and ricardian contracts to add different layers of security which supplement bitcoin and allow it to scale past VISA in transactions per second while not adding blockchain bloat or more wasteful energy use.

Comment: Re:Is bitcoin sustainable? (Score 1) 46 46

Bitcoin already uses 5000 times the energy visa does to record a financial single transaction. If parasites learn to use the bitcoin network for their own computations, that will get even worse. http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

The cited study is flawed as it doesn't account for the massive investment in call centers, offices, employees, auditors, and regulators that are needed to sustain the VISA payment rails network and the massive energy use and environmental impact those variables demand.

Comment: Re:Didn't you notice the latest drama in bitcoinla (Score 1) 46 46

Nevermind the arguments why: The current 40 GB came to be under a cap of at most one megabyte added to the blockchain every ten minutes. If 40GB is too rich for you already, under a 1 MB per 10 mins cap, then a 20 MB cap certainly is, and a doubling of the cap every year even moreso.

BIP 100 and 101 request no such change as you are representing. The limit will likely be raised to 8MB in the final revision of the proposals and this is more of a temporary measure to allow more time to test for sidechains and interpayment channels like the lightning network - https://lightning.network/ligh... which allow bitcoin to scale to VISA level tps without bloating the blockchain.

Additionally, remember that merkle tree pruning has already been merged in as of 4/24 which allows for full nodes with only 1.3 GB of storage.

Comment: Re:Great. (Score 1) 391 391

It's not a stretch to imagine the same sort of restrictions being mandated for 3D printers and CNC machines.

Sure, but such restrictions and mandates are ultimately futile because there exists enough open hardware advocates and hobbyists out there where such attempts are futile unless they mandate making things for yourself to be illegal(3d printers can make 3d printers) and than proceed to investigate and arrest everyone of us. We understand that these efforts are futile and will reflect poorly upon them thus leading to their undoing.

Understand that this project has very little to do with making a gun while simultaneously everything to do with making a gun. It represents an Anarchist attempt to force the issue by asking hypocrites to show their cards and call their bluff and is more about the first amendment than the second. We welcome capitulation or draconian regulation as neither effects us and removes the facade and any false pretenses.

Comment: Re:Personal Defense is a right (Score 1) 391 391

So do claymores (the exploding kind), and minguns. What's your point?

Those can be fun to use but tend to be a bit impractical for home/business defense. A 12 gauge shotgun has a large spread to easily hit the target with a variety of rounds to choose from where a load can be selected to avoid over-penetrating through walls - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

AR-15s 5.56 will be stopped at the exterior wall of most homes and makes a great easy to use rifle when facing multiple assailants.

Miniguns are a bit bulky and impractical, and claymores tend to upset the neighbors a bit when their dog comes over to smell my garden of flowers.

Beware the new TTY code!

Working...