When you hear the numbers of the sheer scale of energy being consumed for these mining operations, it seems pretty obvious that it's a non-sustainable path forward:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bitcoin-electricity-1.4668768
By his math, computers hashing for bitcoins — known as "miners" — are currently using at least 2.5 gigawatts of power, and are on track to collectively suck up more than three times that by the end of this year. That's more than Ireland, Austria, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and most Canadian provinces currently each use.
I think it's only a matter of time until PoS & DPoS turn into the main consensus algorithm -- but given how much emphasis is placed on Bitcoin, I would imagine a certain level of adoption rests on the Bitcoin project itself making some kind of switch, and I don't necessarily think that will happen any time soon (not that I know anything).
With the sidechain implementations, we could see a big decrease in the mining difficulty and hopefully somewhat curve this... but, maybe eventually it will become POS too, of that I'm not certain, but it does seem a big crazy to see those numbers.
I don't know enough about the side-chains to comment on any of that. All I know is that it will be interesting to continue watching how everything evolves... Every day I learn a little bit more, only to realize that there's more and more than I don't know, and things are evolving and growing faster than I can keep up.
Of course the mainstream likes to shat on Bitcoin... Here is a video with some good food for thought. Not saying that Bitcoins energy consumption is a good thing, but it may not be as bad as some people might want you to think...
In a nutshell, Mining bitcoins is not 'location dependant' like you don't have to be in a specific geographic area to mine Bitcoins, you can do it anywhere there is power and internet. And the large mining operations will of course go to where the cheapest electricity is available. And usually, that is because there is a surplus of electricity. I visited a hyrdroelectric dam last year where, even though it was built in the 1920's ... it was only utilizing like 4% of it's capacity...
Also its funny, you'll never hear about CBC mentioning about the banks, their huge office buildings, often with lights on 24/7, their massive server farms, nobody bats an eye at their energy consumption, which is also really up there.
Now having said all that, Yay DPOS!!! 🙌
CBC does a pretty good job of ripping on banks for a lot of their shady and predatory practices, but I would think that their energy consumption is a much less significant issue -- likely several orders of magnitude lower than bitcoin mining (given corporate energy consumption is -- I would imagine -- lumped in with national energy consumption; if bitcoin mining is found to be using more energy than small~medium scale nations, then office buildings using lights is probably insignificant in comparison).
I agree with you though that not enough context is given for how much energy is consumed by large tech companies, their huge campuses and server farms.
That being said -- I've written all the above without checking out the video, which I'm checking out right meow.
EDIT: Just watched the video. Anton makes a lot of good points -- and I think his case of understanding the "hidden costs" is super important. A lot of this also applies to stuff like Hydroelectric dams. While better than coal-fired plants, or other dirty power generation methods -- they still, typically, require flooding huge areas of land that were previously animal habitat or fertile farm land (Site C dam in BC suffers from these issues as well). Rivers get choked off, or materials are consumed to produce PV panel arrays.
I guess at the end of the day -- yes, the energy consumption claims of bitcoin are probably overblown and taken out of context to other products or industries. But it still stands that the world is suffering from energy shortages in certain places, as well as the effects from intense resource consumption. It certainly seems like PoW consensus is more of an energy hog than some alternatives -- so it would make sense to be striving to attain that level of efficiency where possible, practical, and secure.
EDIT 2: Thanks for the chat!
Hey, yes it's not a clearly drawn black/white issue, I do agree that the massive energy consumption isn't a GOOD thing, especially considering that those machines are running 24/7 and using energy even when not finding blocks... It must indeed be staggering, but I just wanted to bring a little bit of balance/perspective as Andreas has pointed out. I mean, there's always two sides to every story, and somewhere in the middle is the truth. Indeed though, wasting energy isn't a great thing, and I wonder because I hear a lot of China is coal-fired electricity, and lots of mining happens there(in fact, I hear the government is even giving free power to mining operations, whether or not that's true, would have to be looked in to)
One last thing, 10 minutes(if not hours) for a Bitcoin transaction? Come on... Move over BTC, come on Graphene! 😁 Definitely happy for the chat as well. I enjoy the random talks here on Steemit. 🙂
Bitcoin will never transition. Bitcoin is already a dinosaur; an anchor that the rest of the space can trust to always stay the same. The entire community profits from Bitcoin's consistency. There is no need to change it. It simply will stop being the #1 coin, but it will still have great value.
If you had a ship, the anchor is very important, but it is certainly not the most valuable piece of equipment you have. Bitcoin is the anchor of crypto. We need it to feel safe and grounded. We need it to get the rest of the world to board the ship. Once we have mainstream adoption, the security and brand-trust that Bitcoin provides will no longer be the #1 priority of the space.
Also, when you think about it, the Sun provides infinite energy. It doesn't matter how much energy Bitcoin consumes if that energy is renewable. This is a problem that's going to solve itself.
@edicted @mstafford this is a little bit in the realm of Conspiracy, but have you two ever heard of Wardenclyffe, Nikola Teslas Tower? Rumour has it that this was supposed to be a wireless ENERGY transmission system, but when JP Morgan who was a financier of the system found out it was a 'free' energy system that could not be metered, he branded the thing as a death ray and had the whole project scrapped. Basically the idea was that this system was generating electricity from water running underground in aquifers, harnessing the electrostatic energy that this (constantly running) water generate and was able to transmit this WIRELESSLY, hence not being able to meter it.
Like I said, that's all fully in the realm of conspiracy, but since we're already on that route, I'll take it a step further and mention that I watched a video with seemingly strong compelling evidence that the ancient Egyptians knew as well how to harness this, the pyramids not really being tombstones but rather.... power plants! The evidence being things such as a graphite tunnel(graphite being an amazing electrical conductor) running very deep underground... As well purportedly the hieroglyphs inside the pyramids, the walls are all clean and if they were using burning torches to illuminate what they were doing in there, there would be soot everywhere on the walls/ceilings which there is not I guess. Also there was I guess a giant gold capstone at the top of the pyramid, which has since been missing... I mean... who wouldn't want a giant gold pyramid capstone?? ;) The idea being that ancient civilizations were more primitive than we are and we are like the 'pinnacle' of technological advancement may not be as accurate as our modern day narratives say... BUT HEY... THAT'S ALL JUST A CONSPIRACY... But it makes you wonder when this is on the money:
I think some of that is fact.
At 3:40 of this Drunk History clip:
Obviously, Drunk History is the foremost authority of truth :D
The dinosaur / anchor analogies are good -- and I think you're on the money with that.
However, your point of the Sun providing infinite energy (while true) is drastically far away from being taken advantage of. I would suggest that it's not a problem that is going to solve itself (especially when considering some of the recent reports stating the required timelines to radically reduce emissions). It would be ideal if bitcoin mining operations were all fusion and solar powered -- but it's a bit unrealistic to expect that any time soon.
It's been shown that printing money and even just minting pennies takes more energy and resources than Bitcoin.
The value, trust, and portability that Bitcoin provides is worth more than ten times as much energy as we are currently putting into it.
The whole energy consumption argument in opposition to Bitcoin is totally fabricated fake news. It's the same as when economist Dr. Doom tries to tell us that it would cost $60 to buy a cup of coffee with Bitcoin. These people are overreaching as hard as they can to stop crypto from going mainstream because they know it will cripple the establishment.
The fiat currencies in Venezuela, Iran, and other middle eastern counties is already doomed. Central banks no longer have the means to hit the nuclear winter option to stop the bleeding. Fiat will continue to bleed into crypto until it finally bleeds out, starting with the weakest economies first.
You really have to wonder if these weak economies are going to come out on top because they were FORCED to transition to this superior system sooner.
I haven't seen anything backing this -- but I wouldn't be surprised if it were accurate. I think people often forget that the metal coins and paper notes they use have to literally be mined/refined/cast/processed/counted/distributed to be used -- and a similar, though different, process for paper/trees (or plastics for todays polymer based notes).
I agree with you that probably, the problem is severely overstated -- and likely for selfish reasons on the part of traditionalists / banksters. That doesn't change the fact though, that there appears to be a more sustainable solution (and like all things, probably even better solutions to come in the future).
Good chat!
Haha! Good chat indeed! Sometimes I forget I'm not even that bullish on Bitcoin. I'm holding zero Bitcoin right now and half my stake is in Steem. We are so undervalued it's not even funny.
I'll admit to being pretty ignorant about the rest of the "crypto-space"...
Throughout my life I find myself getting swept up in trends / fads / other stuff that eventually becomes popular (at least where I live). I think the fact that I'm on here, interacting with people via blog posts, polls, card games, videos, streamcasts, photos, and other stuff (as well as developing my own project) is evidence to the utility (or at least functionality) that Steem has.
It certainly seems like it's the most accessible coin/token/project out there. It might be a bit confusing, but I think that's par for the course for the entire 'crypto-space' (of which, again, I know very little about).