The anti-crypto thread

Page 69 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
97,031
16,248
126
In total. There are still WAY more gamers than your average miner.
This says miner use 110 TWH a year


This says gamer use 75 GWH per year.


Since the gamer study is older by three years let's triple it and call it 225GWH/Y. That is still nothing compared to 110TWH/Y.



Tell me Larry do you have a power meter for your apartment or do you pay a flat rate?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: snoopy7548

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
97,031
16,248
126
I mean, they are. But transactions aren't verified until a block is mined.

But it's only the fastest guy that solves it gets the reward right? The thousands of runner ups just wasted power. It's not like the losers can stop, since they have to validate that block then move on to next.
Basically the top pools get 80% of the reward while the rest spin up their power meter for nothing.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,065
11,693
136
But it's only the fastest guy that solves it gets the reward right? The thousands of runner ups just wasted power. It's not like the losers can stop, since they have to validate that block then move on to next.
Basically the top pools get 80% of the reward while the rest spin up their power meter for nothing.

Pretty much. Though it's more a game of chance. The "faster" miners are just like people buying more tickets in hopes of winning a lottery.

Regardless

Without that process, there is no txn validation. All the "winners" and "losers" are required to make Proof of Work . . . work. Mining and transaction verification are inseparable in PoW systems. So when someone says "it costs $100 to send a transaction over Bitcoin" or whatever (and I'm not even sure it costs that much right now, but that's possible), then what they're really pointing out is how much BTC you have to pony up to make it worth it for a miner to try and mine out the block where your txn is located.
 

BFG10K

Lifer
Aug 14, 2000
22,709
2,996
126
Since the gamer study is older by three years let's triple it and call it 225GWH/Y. That is still nothing compared to 110TWH/Y.
Exactly, a drop in the bucket in comparison.

Gamers don't collapse power grids, cause component shortages, re-commission power plants, or fill warehouses with thousands of GPUs running 24/7.

Trying to draw equivalency of "my-nah" cryptobros to gamers (or hot dog vendors) is utter lunacy.
 
Last edited:

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
97,031
16,248
126
Pretty much. Though it's more a game of chance. The "faster" miners are just like people buying more tickets in hopes of winning a lottery.

Regardless

Without that process, there is no txn validation. All the "winners" and "losers" are required to make Proof of Work . . . work. Mining and transaction verification are inseparable in PoW systems. So when someone says "it costs $100 to send a transaction over Bitcoin" or whatever (and I'm not even sure it costs that much right now, but that's possible), then what they're really pointing out is how much BTC you have to pony up to make it worth it for a miner to try and mine out the block where your txn is located.


Like I said, the goal is block validation, the coins are the carrots dangling in front of the mule. Except there is only one carrot and there are thousands of mules.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,560
10,175
126
Also, uh weird that you clowns suddenly want to demonize gaming when gaming companies are now looking to start implementing crypto bullshit. So which is it, crypto great and is gonna revolutionize everything and save the world or is gaming a 50x worse evil because...well gee you're intellectually dishonest and think people arguing that something that wastes tons of electricity for no positive benefit is worse than something that might use more electricity than that, but provides at least some actual benefits for society is somehow a flawed argument?
It's intellectually dishonest to claim to want to ban crypto based on energy usage, when gaming takes like 50x more, on the whole.
It's also intellectually dishonest to make the claim that advanced technologies for decentralization, such as public access, permanancy, and transparency, and decentralization, aren't valuable tools on which to build Web 3.0 upon.

Hell, its like you people think gamers don't care about electricity use. I'd be all for pushing efficiency in gaming. Fucking tax that shit for those externalities. Just tax the everloving fuck out of crypto since its only purpose so far is to help douchebags try to evade paying taxes. Guess what would happen if people actually had to pay taxes on crypto. It'd die almost instantly as there would be no benefit to it for even the financial speculation.
Hard to actually evade taxes, since the bitcoin ledger is public, open, and permanent. Almost like someone is being intellectually dishonest about that situation. Hint: In the USA, people do have to pay tax on crypto. And look, it's not going away!
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
97,031
16,248
126

Here's one estimate.

Even if we go with that estimate it is not gamer using 50x more than miners.

I'll do a quick estimate to show you how ludicrous their gamer number is.

I run a RMx850 psu which is 80+ efficiency. So let's call it 1KW draw which you know it is not drawing since I am on Ryzen 3700X, RX5700 XT, 1 1TB NVME, X570 board and 16GB ram.

Let's call it a full time job, so 50 weeks of 40 hours = 2,000 hours yearly. So that translates to 2MWH a year.

There are 40M people in California. So 80M MWH a year. Or 80TWH is the power consumption of the entire population of California playing games as a full time job.

Does that 4.1TWH still look reasonable to you? Cuz that would mean there are 5% of Californians that do nothing but play games as a full time job.
 
Last edited:

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,233
1,610
136
Nah, there are a whole heap of previous last fool schemes I didn’t get in on and I’m not angry about. Crypto is just one more last fool scheme I’m not angry about. For the same reason I don’t have a closet full of beany babies, I don’t have a wallet full of crypto.

With any investment, one needs to do his research and think about usability. Thing that only have collectors value are prone to fads and hence prone to lose value. Things that have an actual use will have a much brighter future.

For example my grand-dad was big in the stamp collection game. Always told grandma it's a great investment. It wasn't. the cheaper stuff bascially lost all value and the really rarer stuff still lost a big fraction of their value. Same logic. historic stamps have zero use. It's just collectors value. Having said that I got a crypto-stamp as present recently which one could "scratch open" to get an NFT. But I'm sure it loses all value once you actual "mint" the NFT. (That stamp was like $5 so it while it's sutpid as investment it's just a fad of current times and I don't think it will get valuable).

What makes this particularly egregious is it's a massive transfer of wealth from those who don't have it to lose to those who already had plenty.

All the poor fools (who will likely be the last fools) sending all their free cash into the wealth lottery of crypto are just giving it to a bunch of tech bros and people who already had high incomes prior to this. There is some truth to the 'everyone on these forums makes $100k+' as we have a high concentration of people with decades in technology. All those GPUs and CPUs we had access to 'for free' were paid for via high technology salaries.

It's a transfer of wealth all right, in the wrong fucking direction.

Viper GTS

If you think averages Joes investing 100 or 1000 bucks are driving up the price, think again. It is exactly the other way around. Rich people or better said organisations that are investing millions are driving the price. And you can be part of the ride with your 1000 bucks and make them 10000 or 100k if very lucky. It is something you can't do in traditional markets. Once the market is open to you (stocks) that easy 10x-100x gains are long gone, no chance to invest in start-ups with your measly 1000.

Does that 4.1TWH still look reasonable to you? Cuz that would mean there are 5% of Californians that do nothing but play games as a full time job.

Or 10% that play 12 hrs or 20 % that play 6 hrs. Yeah agree it is probably of by at least 2x. 20% that play 3hrs a day seems somewhat reasonable if we include consoles and for sure probably low-balling if we include mobile phones and handhelds but does don't use that much power to matter much.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,065
11,693
136
Would be interesting to see how much energy the banking and stock trade system uses vs mining. I'm sure those systems are not that much better.

Considering how many transactions the modern American banking system can facilitate, it's actually much more efficient than Bitcoin but much less efficient than something like Stellar.
 

njdevilsfan87

Platinum Member
Apr 19, 2007
2,331
251
126
Considering how many transactions the modern American banking system can facilitate, it's actually much more efficient than Bitcoin but much less efficient than something like Stellar.

Solana, Cardano, Polkadot, Tezos, etc. All more power efficient than Visa while starting to reach levels of transaction throughput of Visa. And you deploy smart-contracts and build apps on them too.

But nobody would dare mention that here as it completely destroys one of their anti-crypto agendas.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,509
4,003
126
But nobody would dare mention that here as it completely destroys one of their anti-crypto agendas.
You are confusing crypto with blockchain.

Many people feel that blockchain technology is great, but the existing crypto coins will become valueless over time. There are an infinite possible number of coins, thus supply is infinite (even if one coin is limited anyone can create unlimited different copies of that coin). Since demand is not infinite, so the long term price is zero. It may take decades to reach zero, but that is where they will end up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: biostud

njdevilsfan87

Platinum Member
Apr 19, 2007
2,331
251
126
You are confusing crypto with blockchain.

Cryptos are what facilitated the growth of blockchain tech. Without the cryptos, we still have blockchains (but definitely not ones with smart-contracts or self-governance mechanisms) but instead ones that no one cares to build or deploy anything on, because they aren't secure, decentralized, and without any efficient rewards mechanism for participating (i.e. cryptocurrency, because I have no idea how you involve fiat as any sort of native or base payment token), then there's no growth.

People confuse bad people with cryptos. They are unfortunately a useful tool for bad people, but after all this time I can't really sympathize with anyone buying shiba-moon-cum coin/NFT or DeFi yielding rocket-dick-token for 20,000% APY and then losing everything.

The point I was making though is that - and this is not directed at you specifically but for those that keep bringing it up: the energy argument is dead. And the fact people still bring it up is the equivalent (to me at least) of 75 year old politicians making choices on modern matters that influence the lives of prime-career millennials with their entire lives still ahead of them. If/when the market is freely allowed to determine that yes PoS is undeniably better than PoW, then even Bitcoin will be forced to evolve too.

So those who don't know what they're talking about should just leave it alone. Otherwise they contribute to trying to shackle innovation and slow this entire process down. And for what? Because they missed the boat? Or maybe it's because they really truly care about a major pipeline being ransomed 8 years ago, but seem to conveniently ignore the pre-school level of cyber-security that major pipeline had deployed. Or maybe they truly believe the 0.5% world-energy consumption of Bitcoin, much of on renewables, is the main cause of climate collapse... which brings me back my 75 year old politician analogy!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VirtualLarry

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,560
10,175
126
Cryptos are what facilitated the growth of blockchain tech. Without the cryptos, we still have blockchains (but definitely not ones with smart-contracts or self-governance mechanisms) but instead ones that no one cares to build or deploy anything on, because they aren't secure, decentralized, and without any efficient rewards mechanism for participating (i.e. cryptocurrency, because I have no idea how you involve fiat as any sort of native or base payment token), then there's no growth.

People confuse bad people with cryptos.

They are unfortunately a useful tool for bad people, but after all this time I can't really sympathize with anyone buying shiba-moon-cum coin/NFT or DeFi yielding rocket-dick-token for 20,000% APY and then losing everything.

People forget, pr0n built the internet. As far as technology, capacity expansion, etc. Literally.

So, as much as some people have against pr0n (why?), it still resulted in ... well, I guess the internet is as much a force for "good" as humankind has ever seen. (Maybe minus Vicebook.)

So, as much as people have against "crypto", it's building Web 3.0, the new basis for the interwebs of the future. Decentralization is key!
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,560
10,175
126
Citation needed.
Pretty widely-known fact, that early higher-bandwidth hosting and video / streaming services were built out by the nascent pr0n industry. We wouldn't have AWS and Netflix, had pr0n providers not blazed a trail of technology.


So in those days, Trekkie Monster's analysis wouldn't have been far wrong.
And, as he suggests to Kate, appetite for pornography helped to drive demand for faster connections: better modems and higher bandwidth.
It spurred innovation in other areas, too. Online pornography providers were pioneers in web technologies, such as video file compression and user-friendly payment systems, and in business models, such as affiliate marketing programmes.
All these ideas went on to find much wider uses. And as the internet expanded, it gradually became less for pornography and more for all that other stuff.

quoth the beeb.

 
Last edited:

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,303
13,914
136
Pretty widely-known fact, that early higher-bandwidth hosting and video / streaming services were built out by the nascent pr0n industry. We wouldn't have AWS and Netflix, had pr0n providers not blazed a trail of technology.
Uh... sure. I wouldn't say that means "porn built the internet", since what you're describing didn't happen until the mid-2000s, after consumer broadband was more widely available, and AFTER the Dot Com Bubble.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,266
29,008
136
Cryptos are what facilitated the growth of blockchain tech. Without the cryptos, we still have blockchains (but definitely not ones with smart-contracts or self-governance mechanisms) but instead ones that no one cares to build or deploy anything on, because they aren't secure, decentralized, and without any efficient rewards mechanism for participating (i.e. cryptocurrency, because I have no idea how you involve fiat as any sort of native or base payment token), then there's no growth.

People confuse bad people with cryptos. They are unfortunately a useful tool for bad people, but after all this time I can't really sympathize with anyone buying shiba-moon-cum coin/NFT or DeFi yielding rocket-dick-token for 20,000% APY and then losing everything.

The point I was making though is that - and this is not directed at you specifically but for those that keep bringing it up: the energy argument is dead. And the fact people still bring it up is the equivalent (to me at least) of 75 year old politicians making choices on modern matters that influence the lives of prime-career millennials with their entire lives still ahead of them. If/when the market is freely allowed to determine that yes PoS is undeniably better than PoW, then even Bitcoin will be forced to evolve too.

So those who don't know what they're talking about should just leave it alone. Otherwise they contribute to trying to shackle innovation and slow this entire process down. And for what? Because they missed the boat? Or maybe it's because they really truly care about a major pipeline being ransomed 8 years ago, but seem to conveniently ignore the pre-school level of cyber-security that major pipeline had deployed. Or maybe they truly believe the 0.5% world-energy consumption of Bitcoin, much of on renewables, is the main cause of climate collapse... which brings me back my 75 year old politician analogy!
Declaring the energy argument dead does not make it so. If bitcoin really consumes 0.5% of world energy demand then it should have been shut down yesterday. As I stated earlier, a nihilist cult couldn’t have devised a worse exchange medium.
 

njdevilsfan87

Platinum Member
Apr 19, 2007
2,331
251
126
Declaring the energy argument dead does not make it so. If bitcoin really consumes 0.5% of world energy demand then it should have been shut down yesterday. As I stated earlier, a nihilist cult couldn’t have devised a worse exchange medium.

Again, you sound like 75 year old politician talking here.

You can't just simply shut down Bitcoin. If the US were to "shut it down", you'd have an exodus of crypto holder and blockchain entrepreneurs heading to Canada or any developed country still that's crypto friendly. And guess what? Bitcoin would still be using some fraction of a percent of world energy demand (most of it on renewables). But again, please tell me how much you really do care how much power Bitcoin is using as you continue to live your carbon footprint heavy western lifestyle.

The only good course of action is to let the space keep evolving and naturally move away from PoW. Already within the space newcomers call Bitcoin, "the boomer coin". As I said, at some point the pressure for Bitcoin to evolve will come (probably when Ethereum flips Bitcoin's market cap) and it will either do so or be replaced by Ethereum as digital gold, a store of value, or whatever. Any interference is just going to slow this down.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
22,065
11,693
136
Solana, Cardano, Polkadot, Tezos, etc. All more power efficient than Visa while starting to reach levels of transaction throughput of Visa. And you deploy smart-contracts and build apps on them too.

But nobody would dare mention that here as it completely destroys one of their anti-crypto agendas.

How many people know anything except Bitcoin? Depressingly few. Also Solana and Cardano have mmmm well let's not start the whole decentralized vs centralized debate, but they aren't entirely decentralized. Regardless, there ARE some at-least-semi-dentralized blockchains out there offering good throughput. The question is how well they'll hold up to pressure. Stuff like Ethereum I trust to stay decentralized, but the base chain throughput is just awful. And Bitcoin is a joke by this point.

"A store of value"

Go on, drink the Bitcoin Maximalist Kool-Aid and then complain that it tastes like crap. Store of value my foot.
 

beginner99

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2009
5,233
1,610
136
The question is how well they'll hold up to pressure. Stuff like Ethereum I trust to stay decentralized, but the base chain throughput is just awful.
Most of these "ETH killers" struggled just as much with any kind of increased demand or they are so centralized it's pointless to even do it in a blockchain. It is secure, decentralized and performant. Pick 2. ETH picks the first two and performance will come from Layer 2. At this point I think side-chains are also too insecure, eg. MATIC.

Roll-ups get faster and cheaper the more transactions happen. Why? Because each roll-up has a certain minimum size. the more transaction the faster that is reached and you are sharing the cost with more transactions in the same roll-up.
Then with zkEVM you can run the smart contracts on L2 making it even cheaper. At that point it will likley be cheaper than banking if you include all the fees you pay in traditional banking.