Wikipedia Community Votes To Stop Accepting Cryptocurrency Donations (arstechnica.com) 40
waspleg writes: More than 200 long-time Wikipedia editors have requested that the Wikimedia Foundation stop accepting cryptocurrency donations. The foundation received crypto donations worth about $130,000 in the most recent fiscal year -- less than 0.1 percent of the foundation's revenue, which topped $150 million last year. In her proposal for the Wikimedia Foundation, GorillaWarfare added that 'Bitcoin and Ethereum are the two most highly used cryptocurrencies, and are both proof-of-work, using an enormous amount of energy.' According to one widely cited estimate, the bitcoin network consumes around 200 TWh of energy per year. That's about as much energy as is consumed by 70 million people in Thailand. And it works out to around 2,000 kWh per bitcoin transaction.
Bitcoin defenders countered that bitcoin's energy usage is driven by its mining process, which consumes about the same amount of energy regardless of the number of transactions. So accepting any given bitcoin donation won't necessarily lead to more carbon emissions. But cryptocurrency critics argued that Wikimedia's de facto endorsement of cryptocurrencies may help to push up their price. And the more expensive bitcoin is, the more energy miners will devote to creating new ones. If the foundation complies with the community's request, it wouldn't be the first organization to stop using cryptocurrencies due to environmental concerns. Earlier this month, the Mozilla Foundation announced it would stop accepting cryptocurrencies that use the energy-intensive proof-of-work consensus process. These include bitcoin and ether -- though the latter is expected to convert to a proof-of-stake model in the future.
Bitcoin defenders countered that bitcoin's energy usage is driven by its mining process, which consumes about the same amount of energy regardless of the number of transactions. So accepting any given bitcoin donation won't necessarily lead to more carbon emissions. But cryptocurrency critics argued that Wikimedia's de facto endorsement of cryptocurrencies may help to push up their price. And the more expensive bitcoin is, the more energy miners will devote to creating new ones. If the foundation complies with the community's request, it wouldn't be the first organization to stop using cryptocurrencies due to environmental concerns. Earlier this month, the Mozilla Foundation announced it would stop accepting cryptocurrencies that use the energy-intensive proof-of-work consensus process. These include bitcoin and ether -- though the latter is expected to convert to a proof-of-stake model in the future.
How Much Does It Cost... (Score:2)
How much does it cost to move a bitcoin to USD and send it by mail? 2000kwh + a stamp?
--
Men for the sake of getting a living forget to live. - Margaret Fuller
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How much does it cost to move a bitcoin to USD and send it by mail?
Less than the lost potential of those trafficked with shitcoins, that's for sure.
Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Bitcoin defenders countered that bitcoin's energy usage is driven by its mining process, which consumes about the same amount of energy regardless of the number of transactions. So accepting any given bitcoin donation won't necessarily lead to more carbon emissions.
I mean, bitcoin defenders by definition don't (or refuse to) understand how the world works, so that's about the best argument I'd expect from them...
Re: (Score:2)
Is that an accurate statement? If there's 1000 machines mining on the network will they draw differing amounts of power/processing if they handling 100 or 1 million transactions? I feel like that cannot be true but It could be from my limited knowledge (isn't the mere act of mining also the act of veryfying transactions?) but also if that were true wouldn't transaction fees be entirely arbitrary?
If a cow was an ostrich (Score:5, Interesting)
> If there's 1000 machines mining on the network will they draw differing amounts of power/processing if they handling 100 or 1 million transactions?
I see why it could be unclear. In this case, that's not *quite* the right question. Let's compare what happens with 100 vs 1 million transactions.
The Bitcoin transaction fee is currently $1.56. With 100 transactions, there would be $156 to be earned. How many $x,000 mining rigs would people buy and run in order to get a share of $156?
With 1 million transactions, the transaction fees are $1,560,000.
How many rigs will people buy and run in order to a share of $1.56 million?
You're literally adding to the pool of money paid to induce people to mine.
You don't HAVE the same number of miners when you offer $156 as you get when you offer $1.56 million.
Re: (Score:1)
> You don't HAVE the same number of miners when you offer $156 as you get when you offer $1.56 million.
and that is not the *quite* right answer either. Of course you might have only elaborated your point to make the difference so big, but let's take a look for the whole picture.
In bitcoin network there is mined a block about every 10 minutes and mining reward is currently 6.25 bitcoins. That means around 37.5 bitcoins in an hour and 900 bitcoins in a day. That is worth of $36M per day.
So the answer shoul
Re: (Score:2)
And *that's* also not quite the whole answer.
The value of is currency it determined (more or less) by the ratio of the amount of trade conducted in the currency to the amount of currency in circulation (and speculation. o the more people who use bitcoin, the more valuable that 6.25 bitcoin reward becomes in terms of real wealth.
Conversely, the fewer people who use it, the less trade there is, and thus the lower the value of the BTC reward.
Also, dang, is it still that high? I thought it had halved a few mo
Re: (Score:1)
yes, the value is determined by the utility. But isn't that how it should be? If more and more people are using it, it has more utility and it is thus more valuable for the society.
Essential point (from the energy usage point of view) is that by the bitcoin algorithm the reward will halve every four years. Since the value of the bitcoin cannot double in that time (in the long run) the energy usage compared to utility will go down.
Re: (Score:2)
If I recall correctly, doesn't the reward disappear entirely in the not-too-distant future? The idea is to get users paying for the service in the long term - the reward is just there to provide incentive to early adopters in order to jump-start the system.
After which the "reward" will tend to scale with the amount of trade conducted in bitcoin.
Re: (Score:1)
I doesn't disappear, but it will shrink smaller with each halving, and at some point it will be smaller than the transaction validation part (as per annual value).
> The reward is just there to provide incentive to early adopters in order to jump-start the system.
Exactly, and in the long run the reward will disappear, and then only around 1% of the value of the Bitcoin is needed to keep it running annually.
Re:Of course (Score:4, Interesting)
Part of mining the block involves validating the transactions in it (for correctness) but if there is one transaction in a block or thousands it's the same calculation to find a valid block (hash-based work). This is why the large-block Bitcoin chains are more energy and economically efficient.
The energy is what binds the network to reality.
Watch as Ethereum finally switches over to proof-of-stake and Central Banks create trillions of dollars out of thin air to gain control of it.
They could buy hundreds of thousands of Bitcoin miners instead, set up a warehouse, build a power plant, import the fuel, etc. but that can't be done in an afternoon from an air-conditioned Midtown office and surprise is the strategic advantage.
Note that being taken over this way is economically beneficial to the Eth bag holders.
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect excuse not to donate. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it seems likely you ever donated anything to Wikipedia, so . . . whatever you gotta tell yourself to sleep at night, man.
Re: (Score:2)
They obviously aren't impressed by the information you provide or your tulips.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just wondering, what are the deleted posts.
I don't know how to find a user using a search.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I had to guess (and I do), you were making an argument of some sort on Wikipedia, and when you posted a link to something you felt supported your point - say, trying to like an article on Democrats to an article on Pedophilia, perhaps? - well, some editor there just didn't sit still for that, did they?
So, making your handle a random charac
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin could stay PoW and not be wasteful (Score:2)
... just by limiting itself to 20 miners, all with identical single-rack rigs.
Just no to POWs? (Score:3)
As opposed to those other, pure currencies? (Score:3)
I assume they are still accepting donations in Dollars, Euro, Pounds, RMB, etc.
Because as we all agree, those currencies don't have a blood-soaked history of social/political/military predation, nor do they continue to prop up their value by creating mountains of environmental waste to trade back and forth as "goods".
Ethereum is about to go to PoS.... (Score:2)
Once the ethereum merge happens - which is currently scheduled for this year, it will be based on proof of stake, not proof of work.
There's already ~ 10mm ethereum staked....
Re: (Score:2)
10 millimetres Ethereum? What the hell does that mean?
Re: Ethereum is about to go to PoS.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, about ten million ethereum.
I don't want neutral parties taking sides (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia isn't exactly a uninvolved party here. An organization's choice about what forms of payment it takes is entirely it's prerogative.
morons (Score:2)
why don't those morons just stop eating and live in the dark. that will save tons of energy