Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

i suspect that proof of stake cryptotokens at scale will consume less energy than video games and machine learning.


sort by: page size:

That's only a downside for proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Proof-of-stake eliminates almost all the energy consumption.

Crypto uses less energy than huge data-centers. Hear me out: Proof-of-Stake is more energy efficient than a data-center and runs on small devices like Raspberry Pi. Modern blockchains like MINA only store the ZK proof for the whole chain, so, even the storage requirements are very minimal.

Already a 6 kW rack will soon cost 7500 Euro in Germany. After that that will be the case around the world. That is when Web 3.0 will make a comeback.


Actually the alternative is proof-of-stake, which accomplishes the same objectives as Bitcoin with very little energy consumption.

Energy-intensive crypto mining is accurate enough, proof of stake isn't energy intensive.

Just a note, Ethereum uses Proof of Stake now instead of Proof of Work, which is what drives the reduction in energy consumption.

Ethereum is going to move to proof of stake instead of proof of work and this will be magnitudes more energy efficient than proof of work.

How energy efficient is this new proof of stake? And was energy usage part of the motivation?

Someone recently told me that proof of stake is less energy intensive than proof of work, but it’s still pretty energy intensive.

It’s worth noting that most modern cryptocurrencies consumes minimal energy as they are not based on the same technology of Bitcoin (proof of work)

Can you provide a source for how proof of stake only reduces energy usage by "merely an order of magnitude or two"?

There are less energy intensive cryptocurrency scaling techniques.

Ethereum does have plans to switch to 'proof of stake' (as opposed to its current 'proof of work') which would dramatically decrease the power consumption.

Social recovery wallets address the first objection.

Proof of Stake reduces blockchain energy consumption by a lot. I've seen people quoting that a proof of stake block production consumes about as much energy as a Google search.


Only if it is based on proof of work. Many cryptocurrencies are now based on proof of stake which does not generally require large amounts of energy. See Eth2 for an example.

Based on observations, it looks like the proof of stake network will drop Ethereum's energy usage by about 99.95%.

https://blog.ethereum.org/2021/05/18/country-power-no-more/

It can do this because it doesn't rely on any sort of "work." It's just another internet protocol.

Proof of stake doesn't have anything to do with tps, so that won't change significantly. The solutions to that are rollups (second layers that inherit the full security of the main chain) and sharding (which multiplies the capacity of rollups). Some rollup systems are in production today, capable of a couple thousand tps. According to the most recent plan I saw, sharding would multiply that by twenty, initially.


The energy used to secure PoW networks is indeed wasteful. But just a heads-up, Ethereum is currently transitioning to Proof of Stake consensus mechanism which will reduce electricity costs by an order of magnitude.

Would moving to proof-of-stake help reduce energy (as used in newer Ethereum)? (less secure, but more energy efficient/faster)

Some are working on a consensus system called proof of stake which does not use energy. It is not clear whether it will be fully secure, etc., but if you read about this stuff decades ago you might want to google and research primarily Bitcoin and Ethereum.

I suspect that the PoW energy costs of things like this would be negligible compared to that for cryptocurrencies, but I haven’t justified my guess.
next

Legal | privacy