Very cool, and interesting, I didn’t know this. There is a-lot going on with renewables these day, even in Northern oil country Texas style Canadian provinces like Alberta, there is a solar boom starting there now.
1 Like
Tidal Spark is a wee Scottish in-joke
Vital Spark was the boat - a “puffer” immortalised in the stories of Neil Munro Vital Spark - Wikipedia
Some folk took the concept of “merch” just too far with this…
1 Like
From re-reading the white paper around 2017 (and forum stuff on here) pretty sure the supply will unlock as the network grows. I.e. the more users there are utilising the network, the more tokens should be minted (but never breaching the max supply limit). This should create some inflation but still allow the price to grow significantly. I am sure the SNT team will correct me if my memory is wrong or if the plan has changed since. I remember there were haters at one point because they didn’t realise that the inflation would only kick in with significant adoption and the price of the token would still grow significantly.
2 Likes
There’s also been talk recently of possible dbl farming rate early on.
Clearly this would cause inflation.
I very much hope it does not happen.
1 Like
Proof of waste. That is pithy and I immediately get the point.
Providing security by doing useful tasks is absolutely better. This is what safe network can deliver and it is a huge deal, imo.
It seems that some sort of work is required to provide security, so using that useful work should be the goal. We then kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
Edit: Security as a byproduct of doing something useful, rather than security being the only product.
1 Like
This discussion is running afoul of “the efficiency paradox”. Typically, as a technology becomes more efficient the total resources consumed increase because the number of users that can now afford to access the tech go up exponentially.
Safe will end up consuming way more energy than bitcoin ever did. Orders of magnitude more.
Maybe, but it depends what it displaces. Bitcoin has displaced virtually nothing yet for all that energy burned.
2 Likes
No. it doesn’t require all this energy. The amount of energy input into bitcoin is directly proportional to the value given to it on the current markets for a mixture of energy costs, wafer fabrication, bitcoin trade markets etc.
You can fork bitcoin on your laptop and run the exact same software. The code has no value though as you cant match the difficulty of the global bitcoin network.
If it uses more energy than the market values against it, then it will have miners switched off and the difficulty will drop…
I hope whatever farming algorithm is ultimately implemented is smooth and continuous if it is a function of time (or equivalent). The BTC “halvings” drive activity and price cycles that I don’t think is entirely healthy.
1 Like
That also isnt how energy works. Energy storage is terribly lagging. Most plants produce excess energy a lot and if you look at offshore energy farms, if its excess its literally dumped into the sea. You need excess to stop blackouts. Its about harvesting this unused energy and converting it into a portable storage form that can teleport to a more useful economic need.
Oh gawd not this again. That’s literally not how energy transportation works. You can’t teleport energy.
1 Like
I didnt say energy transportation. Its transporting economic value. You cant magically transport excess energy without infrastructure to support it lol.
(weird I could not add a reply to an existing post and could not repost without changing the body.)
2 Likes
There’s a theory the four year cycle is to allow overlap for miners to adapt their mining equipment given Moore’s law which apparently would be CPU improvements about every two years. Not sure if that holds water or not.
1 Like
In the video Kevin O’Leary mentions some perspectives that are relevant to quite a few organizations. From what I see (in western Europe at least), organizations are under mandate (from board level, strategy, owners) to achieve 2030/2050 sustainability goals.
Reaching the goals entails difficult reorganizations, changes to core business processes, and so on. Any proposed change that is able to clearly demonstrate its Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) achievement potential has a higher probability of being accepted.
There are very clear sustainability benefits to Safe Network. If we were able to express these in the United Nations SDG framwork, significant “resistance to change” would disappear, at least on the organizational level, where SDG is the reference standard. Organizational demand for Safe Network might not be a first priority, but in terms of profiling and marketing, SDG has traction, relevance, and constancy. It would provide a good profile of the project to people outside the “cryptosphere”.
For example:
3 Likes
How so???
Because of the sheer number of nodes that will be there? Easily 10 to 100 million nodes. At the minimum of 5 watts that could be 500MW, but the average is more likely to be 100 W each and that is 10 GW.
If average is 200 W then 20 GW total. 200W average is unlikely and if phones can be nodes then definitely not that high.
What is the usage by Bitcoin, I don’t know
But if much of people’s storage and internet will be on there you also have to consider other servers and service providers (e.g. amazon, google etc) not running as many servers.
2 Likes
Apparently Bitcoin uses over 120 terrawatt hours per year.
Edit: I had some incorrect calculations, so I removed them. See Neo’s post below for better numbers!
So using the 10 GWatts (100 million nodes @ 100W) and 8760 hours a year gives 87.6 terra watt hours per year. Pretty close and only takes double the nodes to exceed btc by a decent margin
1 billion nodes is like 876 TWH
BUT using spare resources means that for most of the day the energy is being used anyhow.
That means we can derate the figure by 50% easily and may upto 75% less.
BUT if cloud computing services are used the the derating amount would be less.
1 Like
What about those nodes who use renewables