• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

$5 Million Campaign Aims to Make Bitcoin More Energy Efficient

Raevenlord

News Editor
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
3,755 (1.36/day)
Location
Portugal
System Name The Ryzening
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Motherboard MSI X570 MAG TOMAHAWK
Cooling Lian Li Galahad 360mm AIO
Memory 32 GB G.Skill Trident Z F4-3733 (4x 8 GB)
Video Card(s) Gigabyte RTX 3070 Ti
Storage Boot: Transcend MTE220S 2TB, Kintson A2000 1TB, Seagate Firewolf Pro 14 TB
Display(s) Acer Nitro VG270UP (1440p 144 Hz IPS)
Case Lian Li O11DX Dynamic White
Audio Device(s) iFi Audio Zen DAC
Power Supply Seasonic Focus+ 750 W
Mouse Cooler Master Masterkeys Lite L
Keyboard Cooler Master Masterkeys Lite L
Software Windows 10 x64
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
 
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
927 (0.21/day)
Location
South-Africa
Processor AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX B550-F GAMING (WI-FI)
Cooling Corsair iCUE H115i Elite Capellix 280mm
Memory 32GB G.Skill DDR4 3600Mhz CL18
Video Card(s) ASUS RTX 3070 Ti TUF Gaming OC Edition
Storage Sabrent Rocket 1TB M.2
Display(s) Dell S3220DGF
Case Corsair iCUE 4000X
Audio Device(s) ASUS Xonar D2X
Power Supply Corsair AX760 Platinum
Mouse Razer DeathAdder V2 - Wireless
Keyboard Corsair K70 MK.2 Low-Profile Rapidfire
Software Microsoft Windows 11 Pro (64-bit)
Or... Simply use something that isn't BItcoin or ETH. ;)
 
Joined
May 8, 2016
Messages
1,730 (0.61/day)
System Name BOX
Processor Core i7 6950X @ 4,26GHz (1,28V)
Motherboard X99 SOC Champion (BIOS F23c + bifurcation mod)
Cooling Thermalright Venomous-X + 2x Delta 38mm PWM (Push-Pull)
Memory Patriot Viper Steel 4000MHz CL16 4x8GB (@3240MHz CL12.12.12.24 CR2T @ 1,48V)
Video Card(s) Titan V (~1650MHz @ 0.77V, HBM2 1GHz, Forced P2 state [OFF])
Storage WD SN850X 2TB + Samsung EVO 2TB (SATA) + Seagate Exos X20 20TB (4Kn mode)
Display(s) LG 27GP950-B
Case Fractal Design Meshify 2 XL
Audio Device(s) Motu M4 (audio interface) + ATH-A900Z + Behringer C-1
Power Supply Seasonic X-760 (760W)
Mouse Logitech RX-250
Keyboard HP KB-9970
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
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).
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.11/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
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.
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
244 (0.07/day)
Location
Japan
System Name ChronicleScienceWorkStation
Processor AMD Threadripper 1950X
Motherboard Asrock X399 Taichi
Cooling Noctua U14S-TR4
Memory G.Skill DDR4 3200 C14 16GB*4
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon VII
Storage Samsung 970 Pro*1, Kingston A2000 1TB*2 RAID 0, HGST 8TB*5 RAID 6
Case Lian Li PC-A75X
Power Supply Corsair AX1600i
Software Proxmox 6.2
Time to consider Chia, or simply go PoS?
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
30 (0.01/day)
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.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
39 (0.01/day)
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.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.11/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
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.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2014
Messages
39 (0.01/day)
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... :+)
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
7,628 (3.09/day)
System Name Best AMD Computer
Processor AMD 7900X3D
Motherboard Asus X670E E Strix
Cooling In Win SR36
Memory GSKILL DDR5 32GB 5200 30
Video Card(s) Sapphire Pulse 7900XT (Watercooled)
Storage Corsair MP 700, Seagate 530 2Tb, Adata SX8200 2TBx2, Kingston 2 TBx2, Micron 8 TB, WD AN 1500
Display(s) GIGABYTE FV43U
Case Corsair 7000D Airflow
Audio Device(s) Corsair Void Pro, Logitch Z523 5.1
Power Supply Deepcool 1000M
Mouse Logitech g7 gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 11 Pro 64 Steam. GOG, Uplay, Origin
Benchmark Scores Firestrike: 46183 Time Spy: 25121
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.
 
D

Deleted member 24505

Guest
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
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
276 (0.15/day)
Location
60th parallel N.
System Name sleeper Compaq
Processor Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard MSI B550M Pro-VDH WiFi
Cooling ARCTIC Freezer 7 X, Nexus D12SL-12
Memory PNY XLR8 Gaming 2x8GB 3200Mhz
Video Card(s) Asus GTX750Ti GDDR5 2GB
Storage XPG SX6000 Lite 128 M.2 NVMe, Seagate 500GB
Display(s) Sony 32" bravia
Case Compaq SR5700 series
Audio Device(s) Samsung Pleomax S2-500B 2.1. Sennheiser hp.
Power Supply SilverStone 500W Strider Essential ST50F-ES230 V2.0
Mouse Logitech G1
Keyboard Logitech 350
Software Win11 Home
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.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.11/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
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.
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
2,194 (2.21/day)
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.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.11/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
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

New Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2020
Messages
13 (0.01/day)
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?
FPIzNumVIAEjkIP.jpg
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
11,878 (2.32/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R5 5900X/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero8 impact/Asus
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu ek suprim Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in four sticks./16Gb/16GB
Video Card(s) Powercolour RX7900XT Reference/Rtx 2060
Storage Silicon power 2TB nvme/8Tb external/1Tb samsung Evo nvme 2Tb sata ssd/1Tb nvme
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync.dell shiter
Case Lianli 011 dynamic/strix scar2
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi/Asus stock
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Aimo 120
VR HMD Oculus rift
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
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.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
7,762 (3.11/day)
Location
Back in Norway
System Name Hotbox
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, 110/95/110, PBO +150Mhz, CO -7,-7,-20(x6),
Motherboard ASRock Phantom Gaming B550 ITX/ax
Cooling LOBO + Laing DDC 1T Plus PWM + Corsair XR5 280mm + 2x Arctic P14
Memory 32GB G.Skill FlareX 3200c14 @3800c15
Video Card(s) PowerColor Radeon 6900XT Liquid Devil Ultimate, UC@2250MHz max @~200W
Storage 2TB Adata SX8200 Pro
Display(s) Dell U2711 main, AOC 24P2C secondary
Case SSUPD Meshlicious
Audio Device(s) Optoma Nuforce μDAC 3
Power Supply Corsair SF750 Platinum
Mouse Logitech G603
Keyboard Keychron K3/Cooler Master MasterKeys Pro M w/DSA profile caps
Software Windows 10 Pro
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.
 
Top