[buckie]

The problem with Proof of Work is that it is too inefficient and not that it consumes too much energy. If bitcoin could do 100k transactions per second globally, no one would be talking about Proof of Stake. We'd be talking about: how do we make mining green?

[DINKDINK]

>The problem with Proof of Work is that it is too inefficient and not that it consumes too much energy. If bitcoin could do 100k transactions per second globally

The amount of energy mining consumes is not driven by the number of transactions. Decreasing the number of transactions 100% or increasing them 10X doesn't decrease the energy spend 100% nor 10X.

[SomeHacker44]

If you decrease the number of transactions 100% there would be no need to mine blocks, resulting in an impressive energy savings. :)

[decentralised]

Mind you that blocks are mined at regular intervals with or without transactions.

[xwvvvvwx]

mining activity follows the price.

[wmf]

Even if PoW can scale, going from 0.5% of the world's electricity to zero would still be an advantage of PoS.

[Theodores]

We don't. It will be bypassed.

Remember those happy times when you could mine crypto at home? We know how that story unfolded and ended.

Remember those happy times of a year ago when the greater fool game was being played out? We know how that story unfolded and ended.

The shape-shifting blockchain moved on.

There will be plenty of people that pursue their blockchain ideas with promises of revolution with people able to get kidney transplants extra betterly due to blockchain, promises of freeing people from the slavery of the 'fiat' printed money, promises of helping remote farmers in Africa have title to their land, promises of vegans able to buy their avocados with added blockchain goodness and so forth. There will be a lot of big words tantamount to pseudo science uttered complete with 'playground voices' (shouting louder if questioned) so these people will be able to get on with their save-the-world by blockchain things, in good faith, no arguments needed, picking up investors as needed. People like myself that ask the questions out of concern that folks involved don't get burned will learn to shut up.

This group of people that are ideologically invested in blockchain will be making promises for solving the problems of 'making it green', leave them to it and watch how the market for crypto investments shakes out. I think that the problem will get bypassed.

Bitcoin futures did not take off, really this was a failure of marketing rather than a fundamental problem. Next time round you will be able to invest in a fund with your 'fiat' currency (or real money if you want to see it that way). The bank will invest your money in Bitcoin but they won't be trading in it or using it as a means of exchange. Other crypto-currencies including Ethereum will go by the wayside and the Bitcoin maximalists will kind of win.

In time this Bitcoin will be as originally promised - as good as gold. It will sit there in a bank and not in your wallet. It won't be vulnerable like a normal stock (even Apple isn't totally golden) or even property come the big crash. I am not saying that there will be a big crash in late stage, post 2008 capitalism, but what goes up must come down. Many perceived disadvantages of Bitcoin will become advantages. Not being able to do transactions quickly will become an advantage, it being too complicated for your grandma will become an advantage.

When the world was on the Gold Standard the gold just sat there in Fort Knox, none of it being transacted. Bitcoin will be just the same, it will just sit there, not having to have blockchain things actually happen to it. It is in this way that the PoW problem, the slow speed problem as well as the mining-green problem gets solved.

Already there are moves afoot for this new model of acceptance of how Bitcoin is going to be. Once Bitcoin is in the digital vaults of the financial institutions it will have a different store-of-value to today, people will be happy to invest in these products. It will work out fine and the people who are a tad zealous about saving-the-world-with-really-complicated-blockchain-ideas-and-no-domain-knowledge will just be heard from less and less.

I am not trying to be nasty or dismissive of blockchain out of any bitterness, this is just my assessment of how things actually are panning out.

[mythrwy]

Why is this comment downvoted? It's a well reasoned opinion and guy has balls to make a solid prediction. You may not agree, ok fine. But he put it out there, it's not a stupid comment, not a "metoo" comment, it's a considered viewpoint and that's worth more than casual cheap dismissal. Slap it if you want to but this reactionary downvoting makes the site worth less.

[Theodores]

Human psychology is far more interesting than Bitcoin. Time for an analogy.

In theory I could be getting a nice sweet pay-cheque for keeping a server room running like clockwork. This server room could be for a new startup paid for by the Danish Bacon Marketing Board and the product could be 'mySpace for pigs'. I could have my reservations about whether the target demographic ('pigs') might really be tech-savvy enough to post their squeals and grunts online.

Despite the reservations the pay-cheque might be very handy and I might also get to learn lots about 'sys-ops' along the way. For me the compromise might be worth it.

If a vegan Muslim friend disliked what I was working on, claiming that I was part of some evil plan to further enslave our animal friends, how would I respond? I could go ad-hominem on them, calling them a hypocrite for wearing blue suede shoes and skipping their prayers.

If a normal friend pointed out the doubts I already had then I could deny my reservations and quote some statistics about engagement claiming that it will only be a matter of time before the pigs will get with the programme. I could keep digging and cite how genetic modification will handle the lack of opposable thumbs. Or I could claim that the problems will be solved with new A.I. algorithms that will convert those squeaks into beautiful Unicode.

Alternatively I could explain the scam and why it works for me, i.e. that nice fat pay-cheque, my realistic chances of getting 'a proper job' and how that the client is absolutely loaded, that they need this project to work to show the government that they are doing their best for pig welfare and that they know that they know full to well that the project is bogus.

If I went with the latter option - being honest about my motives and the compromises I have made to pay the mortgage then I wouldn't need to put crazy arguments out there to defend myself. We could move on.

This analogy is not far off some of the projects I have worked on over the years, sometimes you take the money and experience gained knowing full too well that the business has a dubious future.

With Bitcoin and the wider cryptocurrency gig there are very few people who are able to express what they are doing with full appreciation for the contradictions given.

I have one friend who is honest about it and the irony is that his coins really are the proceeds of crime. He is up-front about playing the greater fool game and massaging income from the black economy into legitimate assets. He does not care about feeding the starving of Africa by Bitcoin and does not pretend to have any noble ambitions for making the world a better blockchain.

Meanwhile I find others who have no history of actual crime are less than willing to admit that they might have ulterior motives for doing what they doing with cryptocurrency. I get the 'this problem will be solved' nonsense. They will get louder and louder in this not-so-constructive one-way discussion which is a waste of time. There is no need for them to go off into the post-truth world this way. It just makes me wonder if they have been drinking too much of the Koolaid and might be delusional.

I would prefer to move on to the more interesting discussion to be had on the real long term future of the blockchain and where real money can be made. And, as I understand it, the problems really can be solved by selling financial products that are backed by bitcoin and not any of the other cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin is a commodity, not centralised at all. The other coins have someone with a name and an address who might talk the decentralised talk but financial authorities aren't going to necessarily see it that way forever - someone controls the code or the website effectively meaning there is a central point of control. Bitcoin is the unicorn, with all of its flaws, the work around for financial products is as per my earlier post and there is evidence that is happening.

[bouncycastle]

Regarding your new model of acceptance of how Bitcoin is going to be, that would make Bitcoin nothing less than a meme-coin. Which of course can work, just look a Dogecoin. However, it's kind of sad if that happens.

[DennisP]

I think it unlikely that blockchains which can actually be used at scale will fall by the wayside, while bitcoins triumph over all just sitting in cold storage.