reply on: Proof of Work is Efficient \ stacker news ~bitcoin

pull down to refresh

201 sats \ 0 replies \ @abetusk 10 Sep 2021 \ on: Proof of Work is Efficient bitcoin

Aside from the click-baity title, this is actually a pretty good article. The article doesn't really back up its claim that PoW is efficient, though. I would have named the article something like "PoW is necessary", as that's what the article really touches on.

We've talked about PoW being used for other tasks, other than securing the blockchain, and the article addresses it (pointing to a Q&A from Andreas Antonopoloulos):

Splitting the reward can lead to a situation where “it’s more worthwhile to do the secondary function than it is to do the primary function” ... Even if the secondary function was innocuous (a heater), instead of an expected $100 per x hashes, we’d move to $100 + $5 of heat per x hashes. The “Mining Heater” is just another increase in hardware-efficiency, resulting in a higher difficulty and an increase in (energy used/block).

The article also touches on moving to a "Type I" (Kardashev scale) type civilization by saying that Bitcoin mining will provide an incentive to find cheap energy and thus accelerate our move to a Type I civilization to a couple decades from 200+ years. In my opinion, this a fantasy. I think 200+ years is about the right time scale which can calculated by taking the global energy yearly increase in energy as 2%-3.5%. In order to reach that level in the next 35 years or so, the energy usage would have to jump from what it is now, 3%, to 25%. It could happen but I really doubt it.

I did some calculations on solar energy, including estimating time to reach a "Type I" civilization, if anyone is interested in reading it here.

As an aside, at least where I live, New York state in the USA, there are major roadblocks to building "solar power plants". The energy grid isn't setup to support pushing energy into the grid, disallowing solar power plants to be built that tie back into the grid in certain locations. There are also heavy roadblocks to even finding out whether a location can tie back into the grid, often costing $10k+ just to be told "no". The cost is minimal for large organizations but for small to mid sized agencies, that's a heavy price tag.

So the question becomes, what is a profitable enterprise to provide solar that doesn't tie back into the grid in New York state (and maybe other equally restrictive places in the USA). One option is the mine Bitcoin. Another is to do something like smelt aluminum. Yet another is to desalinate water. Another option could be to try and do some CO2 "scrubbing", though I think the electrical processes for that might be too intensive. Interesting that the article touches on many of those points.