I think the big key to Peercoin succeeding is showing whether it really is more energy efficient than Bitcoin and other altcoins, and how that benefits the consumer. The common public I think understands the concept that you pay money for cryptocoins, and then those coins have value. That value might go up or down relative to the dollar that was paid. People typically don’t understand any of the technical jargon, like the proof-of-work, proof-of-stake, 1% inflation, etc. I do think it is teachable though that energy (electricity) is required to sustain a cryptocurrency, and that energy costs money (it isn’t free) and produces a byproduct (CO2, pollution). The less energy required to underpin the currency, the better.
(As a side note, who exactly eats up the energy costs? I am unclear on that. Does the price of electricity rise because of the demands? Does the excess pollution ultimately hit the wallet of the consumer? This needs to be cleared up.)
I’ve seen somesources talk of the enormous energy expenditure of Bitcoin, though I don’t know about the accuracy of those reports. Some people, notably Kevin Rose, think that Peercoin might be a solution to the energy issue, which makes me optimistic about Peercoin’s future as I feel the energy being drained by all these coins will be a hot topic in the future.
However, I think we need some kind of projection or case study to objectively show that Peercoin truly is a viable solution. I doubt there is a “perfect” cryptocurrency (all will have flaws), but I’d like to see some kind of proof that Peercoin belongs in comparison to other coins.
All I have read in regards to the efficiency of Peercoin compared to Bitcoin is this:
As of January 2014, roughly 90% of new coins being generated are still from proof-of-work and the energy consumption of Peercoin uses roughly 30% of the energy consumption of Bitcoin (scaling for market cap - in terms of value secured per GH/s).
There is no reference given behind those stats though, which makes them not at all convincing to me.
I don’t have that deep of a grasp on energy or the technicalities behind cryptocurrencies, but I want to at least throw this plea out there in hopes that someone smarter than I will be able to organize some kind of initiative. I am happy to be of service as well, though I don’t know how much expertise I have to offer.
In typical noobish fashion I’m going to respond without doing any research, risking the possibility that my question doesn’t make sense or has an obvious answer.
SO: Is there a way to infer the amount of CPU time used in minting/mining from information in the blockchain?
That would not quite tell you how much energy was required to put a coin into circulation (I imagine you’d also need information about the efficiency of the processor) but it would be one step closer and seems like a basic statistic for any distributed computing system.
Interesting one. I think with the mining calculators you would be able how much power is used to mine a coin. Theoretically you would be able to calculate the power cost per coin (on average).
The amount of Peercoins generated by mining is still quite high, but only half of that of e.g. Bitcoin. Might look into this if I have a bit more time. Anyone feel free to gather the required data and post your assumptions and statistics in the mean time.
When I first became interested in Peercoin, I had several problems with the concept of energy efficiency (and still do, to a large extent)
I understand an energy efficient car, engine, or heating system - we all do - but a virtual coin in cyberspace? Digital currency does not require printing presses, as with paper notes, nor heavy industry digging it out the ground, as with gold. I think selling a cyber-currency to the general public on the grounds that it is energy efficient is going to have to cross psychological barriers
I understand that Peercoin’s energy efficiency arises from lessened reliance on mining equipment - but how does that compare to TVs, fridge-freezers, lighting, heating, etc. The odd mining rig in a town-full of electrical consumables seems a drop in the ocean
To whom are we selling the benefits of energy efficiency? The whole world - or the coin miner? These are two different audiences, and I wonder whether we are falling between them
We should be selling the concept of energy efficiency as one of two, complementary, benefits:
It is really a lower consumption of energy. Even if it is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the electronics running in the World, I’m of the mind that if you can do something with a smaller footprint, without compromises, then it’s worth doing.
While the energy costs of the Bitcoin network, today, aren’t a concern for most of the people doing serious mining – as the block reward continues to shrink, and their margins get smaller and smaller – the motivation to continue to mine may start to waver. With a proof-of-work secured block chain, that’s very problematic.
Therefore, Peercoin’s design prevents #2 from becoming a fatal problem.
So this would put mining in a league with such household appliances as cordless screwdrivers! I believe a raspberry pi can be powered with a 9v battery and a voltage converter?
With proof of work I think the comparison would be to a space heater.
So we have carbon footprint of a space heater, versus a cordless drill.
Perhaps some day there will be solar powered Peercoin ATMs / miners ?
An ASIC miner can be controlled with a Raspberry Pi, yes, but I wouldn’t attempt to CPU mine with one. You can also keep your Peercoin wallet client on an Raspberry Pi and use it to mint coins – that’s significantly less energy intensive vs. mining, and something that a couple of us here on the forums do.
Maybe get two Kill-A-Watts and do some experiments with mining and minting with two computers. (You could always use the raspberry pi).
I would be willing to do this if there is any interest. I have a 5 Gh/s ASIC, a gaming computer, and a raspberry pi. I would just need to buy a few Kill-A-Watts.
[quote=“Ben, post:5, topic:1683”]We should be selling the concept of energy efficiency as one of two, complementary, benefits:
It is really a lower consumption of energy. Even if it is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the electronics running in the World, I’m of the mind that if you can do something with a smaller footprint, without compromises, then it’s worth doing.
While the energy costs of the Bitcoin network, today, aren’t a concern for most of the people doing serious mining – as the block reward continues to shrink, and their margins get smaller and smaller – the motivation to continue to mine may start to waver. With a proof-of-work secured block chain, that’s very problematic.
Therefore, Peercoin’s design prevents #2 from becoming a fatal problem.[/quote]
Excellent points there, Ben. Thanks for sharing that. Those are the kinds of benefits to Peercoin I think all holders and potential investors should know.
[quote=“Hibero, post:8, topic:1683”]Maybe get two Kill-A-Watts and do some experiments with mining and minting with two computers. (You could always use the raspberry pi).
I would be willing to do this if there is any interest. I have a 5 Gh/s ASIC, a gaming computer, and a raspberry pi. I would just need to buy a few Kill-A-Watts.[/quote]
That might be neat, though how comparable is the mining efficiency of PPC to BTC right now? They are at different points in their life cycles and I just don’t know how quantifiably accurate we can get. Any data might be good though, I suppose.
To the individual miner, mining peercoins costs the same energy that mining Bitcoins does, with the same equipment. Running a Kill-a-watt comparison won’t tell you much.
[quote=“cryptopants, post:9, topic:1683”][quote=“Hibero, post:8, topic:1683”]Maybe get two Kill-A-Watts and do some experiments with mining and minting with two computers. (You could always use the raspberry pi).
I would be willing to do this if there is any interest. I have a 5 Gh/s ASIC, a gaming computer, and a raspberry pi. I would just need to buy a few Kill-A-Watts.[/quote]
That might be neat, though how comparable is the mining efficiency of PPC to BTC right now? They are at different points in their life cycles and I just don’t know how quantifiably accurate we can get. Any data might be good though, I suppose.[/quote]
I think there would be a major difference since the PoW:PoS ratio is around 1:5 to 1:3 right now. So in theory, Peercoin should be quite more efficient that Bitcoin. By the way, Kill-A-Watt has a 0.2% accuracy with a good reputation with the “green” crowd so it will be taken seriously.
I’m not disagreeing with the validity of the Kill-a-watts, not arguing that Peercoin’s energy efficiency isn’t far better, overall, than Bitcoin.
My comment was addressing what I interpreted as a comment about the energy efficiency of Peercoin’s proof-of-work generation in comparison with Bitcoin’s proof-of-work generation.
Proof-of-work plus proof-of-stake is more energy efficient, to be sure.