PoST is a step in the wrong direction. It doesn't address anything, because energy use is not a problem. PoST consumes natural resources and produces e-waste, which is way worse than just consuming clean energy and producing heat, which is what PoW does.
PoST (Chia specifically) produces 20,000 times less e-waste than Bitcoin. Chia also has 20x the nodes as Bitcoin. A comparison of network security would probably be the best way to compare the scales of each.
In the long run, hard drives used for crypto lookups in PoST (farming) have very low load and can last for a decade.
Whereas Bitcoin ASIC miners become obsolete much faster and can't be reused for general purpose computing afterwards.
> Consensus in both of them is based on unforgeable costliness, to make it economically unviable to create alternative histories.
> In both systems, total cost of mining approaches the block reward. For example, if block rewards are $10 million a day, then $10 million worth of energy is used in PoW. PoST burns through $10 million worth of hard drives.
Consensus in both of them is based on unforgeable costliness, to make it economically unviable to create alternative histories. In PoW, the costliness is based on production and consumption of energy. In PoST, the costliness is based on production and consumption of hard drives. Hard drive production needs both energy and natural resources.
In both systems, total cost of mining approaches the block reward. For example, if block rewards are $10 million a day, then $10 million worth of energy is used in PoW. PoST burns through $10 million worth of hard drives.
The cost of PoST is based on scarcity in hard drives, which incentivizes production of hard drives. The cost of PoW is based on scarcity in energy, which incentivizes production of cheap and clean energy.
If PoW's costliness is based on production and consumption of energy, it requires a certain amount of energy and natural resources to produce the hardware required to consume the energy, correct?
I'm failing to follow how PoW is fundamentally different than PoST in terms of hardware (and the resources to produce it) necessary to validate blocks.
It seems that the point of PoST is that we get a similar potential of decentralization that we get with PoW with significantly less energy usage.
I somewhat understand the argument of PoW incentivizing production of cheap and clean energy and I hope this is realized ... specifically clean energy, specifically advanced nuclear as its utilization isn't geographically restricted.
Yes, it requires production of mining hardware, but just for adding new hashing capacity to the network. Major part of the mining cost comes from energy, and I believe that in the long run even more so. Energy efficiency of mining hardware has pretty much plateaued, and modern hardware should be good for 10 years of mining, which means that less hardware has to be replaced.
The competition has shifted into finding cheaper energy sources, rather than developing more energy efficient ASICs. There's a clear trend in this direction.
Clean energy sources are the cheapest [0], and they get cheaper with every new investment and innovation. The competition in Bitcoin mining is global, which means that it becomes unprofitable for everyone to use fossil fuels when profit margins fall enough. This isn't true yet, and it's profitable to use fossil fuels in certain regions.
Usually the cheapest sources are also far away from people, because any local demand will increase energy price. However, when renewables near people have overcapacity, Bitcoin miners can serve as a buyer of last resort. This way, investments in renewables become more profitable.
We can definitely agree that crypto's demand for electricity basically doesn't care about location. So it puts a floor of demand for electricity generation in remote places. (Also in more accessible places. But there it's relatively less important.)
Electricity is both fungible to an extent, but also not as globally traded as eg wheat or oil.
You are right that on the margin Bitcoin makes generation of renewable electricity more profitable. But it also makes all other electricity generation more profitable, on the margin.
I think this is kind of a fallacy. While it's true in short term, in long term more energy sources can be always built, because there's almost unlimited amount of renewable energy available. Demand for electricity increases new investments, expands capacity, and drives costs down. It's not a zero-sum game in the long run.
Also, like I said in the other comment, most of grid energy is already too expensive for Bitcoin, so mining really makes sense just for any extra capacity which wouldn't have a buyer anyway.
> Also, like I said in the other comment, most of grid energy is already too expensive for Bitcoin, so mining really makes sense just for any extra capacity which wouldn't have a buyer anyway.
That's only partially true. And your first paragraph explains exactly why.
Compare: most cows are raised for meat, and the leather is just a by-product. However, the extra income from the leather makes raising cows a bit more profitable, thus giving us more cows on the margin.
Similarly, bitcoin mining soaking up excess capacity makes electricity generation slightly more profitable.
Eg instead of running a coal baseload plant and a natural gas peaker, you could run two coal baseload plants and outside of peak periods, you mint bitcoins. (Numbers are just for illustration. You get the point.)
About your first paragraph: yes, supply is elastic in the long run. But opportunity costs still need to be paid. Yes, in the long run you might not be trading off one Joule for another Joule, but you are trading off uses for capital.
(Also keep in mind that even with elastic supply, we still have decreasing marginal returns. There's only so many good sites for hydro-electric generators; all the windiest spots will be full of wind turbines at some point, etc.)
