It should be illegal everywhere, all Proof of Work does is to calculate trillions of hashes every minute, to discard all of them but one. It's very similar to a lottery, with energy being used instead of tickets.
I don’t think Proof of Work should be illegal anywhere. The value is not in what is computed but in what properties it gives to the system.
What should be addressed though is the problem of negative externalities not being priced in. This is not specific to energy usage of PoW or any other use of energy. Those producing emissions should categorically be required to foot the bill for repairing any damage done and those taxes should be put to use to that end. Once priced in, many things that otherwise commonize costs but privatize profits may prove to be not worth pursuing.
If the societal good done by certain things is worth the negative externalities, those can be explicitly and transparently funded through subsidies which offset some portion of the costs.
Why not ban lotteries too? And casinos? Or have some committee legislate all activities a human can engage in? Where do you draw the line? Let the government solve how to produce energy and let it keep their fingers out of our personal lives.
The net hashing that goes into mining increases the security of the network and is quite different from a lottery. The energy consumed produces a real energy barrier that makes it hard to produce a different variant of the next block. It is not a waste, but a sacrifice made to make the blockchain strongly immutable.
So let us say I do a transaction and now instead of doing it online I have to take a car and go to city 20 km away, go to the bank, withdraw and go to Western Union and send it abroad. What takes more energy?
No, forbidden forbiding, please, for things like these.
In a lottery the ticket fees go to the organizer, who wastes a little in administrative fees, takes a percentage for themselves, and returns the rest as prizes. Bad for income distribution, but not especially wasteful.
In a PoW blockchain the "ticket fee" — the electricity and depreciating hardware — is completely used up. The reward doesn't come from the other miners, but from transaction fees and new coins (diluting the value).
It's like a lottery that uses all the income from tickets to pay for marketing, and the actual prizes are paid by government subsidy.
It's my computer though, and I'm paying for the electricity to run it. Why is it any business of yours what calculations I run on it? What an absurd statement.
Title is grossly incorrect and leading to inflammatory comments. Proof of work has not been made illegal, new proof of work operations that use fossil fuel energy are blocked. Existing proof of work operations, and new operations using non fossil fuel energy are not banned at all.
>> Any surplus presumably gets exported downstate, and to the rest of the Eastern grid surely? At least if it is anything like how it works in Scotland.
> Nope, we don’t have enough transmission capacity to the NYC area — proposals to build transmission capability have been blocked by the Sierra Club. NYC is almost exclusively powered by natural gas after the closure of our sole nuclear plant.
That NYC doesn't have a great amount of national grid connectivity seems surprising.
NYSERDA’s current plan is to have the majority (70%) of the downstate power delivery be renewable by 2030[1].
I agree that the lack of connectivity is surprising, though. My understanding was that the city was actually pretty interconnected with both the state and surrounding states, but it’s possible that some of those connections were reduced after the 2005 blackout. That’s speculation in my part, though.
Because most fossil fuel burning is powering homes and factories. You know, useful stuff. Spending 3% of the world's power on sustaining a gambling addiction for a fringe group of gullible people who can't recognize when a technology, despite being interesting, has presented no social utility whatsoever (besides helping make scams easier) is bad policy.
One argument would be that the energy isn’t really creating anything extra for the world as mining crypto is a zero sum game - ie adding compute to the network doesn’t create additional coins it just increases difficulty (thus it’s burning fuel for no gain in output in aggregate).
Ideally we want to use/focus our resources to create things which then create net value.
Did you read the linked letter? It says the ban is specifically on crypto-mining that uses fossil fuel power plants but allows it using other power plants.
No, but it's a contributing factor, using up all the power consumption of a small country. Turn off crypto mining, they can turn off a few dozen fossil fuel plants.
But it's a variant of Parkinson's Law in action; new energy production is gobbled up by whatever industry. We're building huge offshore windmill farms, but their capacity is bought up by datacenters.
We don't need more green energy per sé; we need to reduce consumption wholesale.
No need to ban fossil fuel burning, just tax all pollution at the level required to clean up said pollution, then use that money to clean up the pollution.
To be fair, the ban is for crypto mining that uses fossil fuels only. But I completely agree with your point that it should just be a ban on fossil fuels.
More generally it is troubling that the ban implicitly is an attack against general purpose computing. There is a policy that only certain programs get to use energy sources. Even those who want to kill crypto currencies should think about the downstream consequences of this policy, and what else it could be applied to next.
I guess one argument is bitcoin mining could run when there's excess renewables capacity, and we should save baseload power generation from e.g. coal and nat gas for consumers that need it 24/7 like residential, hospitals, airports and the like. This is quite a heavy handed approach indeed, but yeah it is at state level. Maybe a more nuanced Federal level action is necessary.
Reading the background this seems a ban of fossil power plants that are used for on-premise crypto-mining rather than crypto-mining more broadly. Basically expanded regulation on which fossil fuel power plants can be allowed to run . Miners are still free to build a different power plant or buy electricity from the grid.
Life long upstate and downstate New Yorker here. Our winters are long and cold, and you'd think we'd want to make proof of work home heaters instead of banning the stuff outright. Seems like a missed opportunity to make home heating cost neutral.
I just finished setting up my POW mining rack at the office. We don’t have heat and the rack was unused so now we’re generating heat and hashes. I would think this is just as efficient as an electric heater.
The subjects of this policy are not miners, but "electric generating facilities":
> FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND
ENDING TWO YEARS AFTER SUCH DATE, THE DEPARTMENT, AFTER CONSULTATION
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, SHALL NOT APPROVE A NEW APPLICA-
TION FOR OR ISSUE A NEW PERMIT PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, OR ARTICLE
SEVENTY OF THIS CHAPTER, FOR AN ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY THAT
UTILIZES A CARBON-BASED FUEL AND THAT PROVIDES, IN WHOLE OR IN PART,
BEHIND-THE-METER ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMED OR UTILIZED BY CRYPTOCURRENCY
MINING OPERATIONS THAT USE PROOF-OF-WORK AUTHENTICATION METHODS TO VALI-
DATE BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS
Instead of banning proof of work they should firewall crypto assets from the traditional financial system.
"Let crypto burn" as they say, both figuratively and in the practical sense, let them burn resources but only it they can pay for them by creating value outside their own bubble, services for which people are willing to pay. Currently the massive impetus of the resource burn is crypto speculation, the hope that a substantial part of the traditional financial system will move to crypto systems and take advantage of the low regulations. That's the major promise of crypto that's driving adoption in the traditional space, regulatory arbitrage.
One of the reasons software and hardware had a revolutionary growth was because regulators were mainly out of the scope. It is natural that once they are omnipresent regulators appear but the problems with regulations and politicians is they end up with an "accept cookies" checkbox on every web page.
When I first read the title, I thought the article was about a work permissions in US and not about the blockchain consensus mechanism. And I have a company in the c̶r̶y̶p̶t̶o̶ Web3 sector.
> the problems with regulations and politicians is they end up with an "accept cookies" checkbox on every web page
The GDPR does not require these.
There are website operators who want to use your personal data without consent to benefit themselves and erroneously believe sticking such a banner on a webpage allows them to.
That's entirely on those website operators who make up their own rules.
> The law will prohibit Environmental Conservation Law permits from being issued for two years to proof-of-work cryptocurrency mining operations that are operated through electric generating facilities that use a carbon-based fuel.
Not really clear at what point your mining approaches an "operation" which requires a permit, but perhaps that's spelled out in some other law somewhere.
I love the two year time limit. I'd love for it to be constitutionally mandated that all laws have to have a time limit of no more than five years or so. If the time passes and the law isn't renewed, into the incinerator that law goes.
I'm not in favor of such short time limits. How can you possibly review all laws every couple of years? That would put even more pressure on the legislative branch, with the result that each and every rule is passed unseen, and everyone loses time anyway.
Sunset clauses often just end up wasting everyone's time at best, and a common worst case is it creates a platform for political brinkmanship and grandstanding around passing an extension that should be straightforward.
Banning proof of work is one step from a free market economy towards a socialist economy, where the government decides what will and will not be produced. If you believe that government is wise enough to decide what should and should not be made and kind enough to always consider the need of the people ahead of their own interests, this will seem like a good idea. But anyone who has studied recent history will understand that it is not.
Oooh these blind Americans, why did they rely so much on Russian gas, and didn't invest more in new green nuclear energy? Now a lot of them will freeze to death this winter :(
Nuclear has immense capital costs. Considering the exponential drop in solar/wind installation costs in the past few decades, it might turn out a bad investment.
[+] [-] me551ah|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xfffafaCrash|3 years ago|reply
What should be addressed though is the problem of negative externalities not being priced in. This is not specific to energy usage of PoW or any other use of energy. Those producing emissions should categorically be required to foot the bill for repairing any damage done and those taxes should be put to use to that end. Once priced in, many things that otherwise commonize costs but privatize profits may prove to be not worth pursuing.
If the societal good done by certain things is worth the negative externalities, those can be explicitly and transparently funded through subsidies which offset some portion of the costs.
[+] [-] texasbigdata|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] datadata|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] germandiago|3 years ago|reply
No, forbidden forbiding, please, for things like these.
[+] [-] BoppreH|3 years ago|reply
In a lottery the ticket fees go to the organizer, who wastes a little in administrative fees, takes a percentage for themselves, and returns the rest as prizes. Bad for income distribution, but not especially wasteful.
In a PoW blockchain the "ticket fee" — the electricity and depreciating hardware — is completely used up. The reward doesn't come from the other miners, but from transaction fees and new coins (diluting the value).
It's like a lottery that uses all the income from tickets to pay for marketing, and the actual prizes are paid by government subsidy.
[+] [-] voldacar|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tromp|3 years ago|reply
There's more to mining than hashing [1]. My Cuckoo Cycle Proof-of-Work scheme for example searches random graphs for fixed length cycles.
It would be more correct to say all the Hashcash Proof-of-Work does is calculating hashes.
[1] https://cryptorials.io/beyond-hashcash-proof-work-theres-min...
[+] [-] datadata|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zhte415|3 years ago|reply
> Nope, we don’t have enough transmission capacity to the NYC area — proposals to build transmission capability have been blocked by the Sierra Club. NYC is almost exclusively powered by natural gas after the closure of our sole nuclear plant.
That NYC doesn't have a great amount of national grid connectivity seems surprising.
[+] [-] woodruffw|3 years ago|reply
I agree that the lack of connectivity is surprising, though. My understanding was that the city was actually pretty interconnected with both the state and surrounding states, but it’s possible that some of those connections were reduced after the 2005 blackout. That’s speculation in my part, though.
[1]: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Publications/Energy-Analysi...
[+] [-] binarymax|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danuker|3 years ago|reply
Burning fossil fuel does. Why not ban fossil fuel burning, if the concern is pollution? How are all other industries exempt?
[+] [-] _uhtu|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Closi|3 years ago|reply
Ideally we want to use/focus our resources to create things which then create net value.
[+] [-] marcinzm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|3 years ago|reply
But it's a variant of Parkinson's Law in action; new energy production is gobbled up by whatever industry. We're building huge offshore windmill farms, but their capacity is bought up by datacenters.
We don't need more green energy per sé; we need to reduce consumption wholesale.
[+] [-] xiphias2|3 years ago|reply
It's not the first time new currencies were made illegal, actually it is expected.
[+] [-] mavhc|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] datadata|3 years ago|reply
More generally it is troubling that the ban implicitly is an attack against general purpose computing. There is a policy that only certain programs get to use energy sources. Even those who want to kill crypto currencies should think about the downstream consequences of this policy, and what else it could be applied to next.
[+] [-] roland35|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scld|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geysersam|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davedx|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toolslive|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marcinzm|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asow92|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilyt|3 years ago|reply
Install a heat pump instead, you will save both power and money on heating.
[+] [-] davedx|3 years ago|reply
Greenidge mining is apparently mining using a NY based coal plant. They're going to have some... issues.
[+] [-] AustinDev|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ericd|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Areading314|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SevenNation|3 years ago|reply
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/A7389
The subjects of this policy are not miners, but "electric generating facilities":
> FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION AND ENDING TWO YEARS AFTER SUCH DATE, THE DEPARTMENT, AFTER CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, SHALL NOT APPROVE A NEW APPLICA- TION FOR OR ISSUE A NEW PERMIT PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, OR ARTICLE SEVENTY OF THIS CHAPTER, FOR AN ELECTRIC GENERATING FACILITY THAT UTILIZES A CARBON-BASED FUEL AND THAT PROVIDES, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, BEHIND-THE-METER ELECTRIC ENERGY CONSUMED OR UTILIZED BY CRYPTOCURRENCY MINING OPERATIONS THAT USE PROOF-OF-WORK AUTHENTICATION METHODS TO VALI- DATE BLOCKCHAIN TRANSACTIONS
[+] [-] bumholio|3 years ago|reply
"Let crypto burn" as they say, both figuratively and in the practical sense, let them burn resources but only it they can pay for them by creating value outside their own bubble, services for which people are willing to pay. Currently the massive impetus of the resource burn is crypto speculation, the hope that a substantial part of the traditional financial system will move to crypto systems and take advantage of the low regulations. That's the major promise of crypto that's driving adoption in the traditional space, regulatory arbitrage.
[+] [-] BlueTemplar|3 years ago|reply
The [New York State] City That Banned Bitcoin Mining (2018) :
https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xk4e4/bitcoin-ban-plattsbur...
This Is What Happens When Bitcoin Miners Take Over Your Town (2018) :
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/09/bitcoin-m...
[+] [-] wslh|3 years ago|reply
When I first read the title, I thought the article was about a work permissions in US and not about the blockchain consensus mechanism. And I have a company in the c̶r̶y̶p̶t̶o̶ Web3 sector.
[+] [-] mrkeen|3 years ago|reply
Like ghastly pictures of people dying on cigarette packages, I'll take informed consent anyday.
[+] [-] unknown|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] iso1631|3 years ago|reply
The GDPR does not require these.
There are website operators who want to use your personal data without consent to benefit themselves and erroneously believe sticking such a banner on a webpage allows them to.
That's entirely on those website operators who make up their own rules.
[+] [-] PeterStuer|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cyberdog|3 years ago|reply
Not really clear at what point your mining approaches an "operation" which requires a permit, but perhaps that's spelled out in some other law somewhere.
I love the two year time limit. I'd love for it to be constitutionally mandated that all laws have to have a time limit of no more than five years or so. If the time passes and the law isn't renewed, into the incinerator that law goes.
[+] [-] tgv|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] realce|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bragr|3 years ago|reply
It's literally in the text that you quoted. If they need a permit to operate a fossil fuel powerplant for mining, the answer is now no for 2 years.
[+] [-] TheCowboy|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] none_to_remain|3 years ago|reply
* Selling weed out of an unlicensed storefront
* Punching strangers in the face for no reason
* Jaywalking
[+] [-] jinpa_zangpo|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throw827474737|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danuker|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nerdponx|3 years ago|reply