Correct. Proof of stake is much more efficient than proof of work, but electricity is still needed to run 24/7 the million validators securing the network.
Ethereum’s been proof-of-stake rather than proof-of-work for couple of years now, so it’s no longer energy intensive.
There inherently can’t be a way to make proof of work lies wasteful as long as there are people who want to do the work. If you make hardware more, then it makes it cheaper to do the same amount of work, so people buy more hardware and do more work and more power gets used. If you make hardware less efficient, people just use the old hardware. You have to abandon proof of work altogether and switch it to something else that isn’t inherently tied to energy usage.
So energy intensive though. There has to be a less wasteful way to do proof of work
Most of the 2nd and 3rd generation blockchains are much less energy intensive (although still more than a home PC).
For example, Ethereum could be run on the energy equivalent of a single wind turbine.
Iirc etherium is proof of stake
Correct. Proof of stake is much more efficient than proof of work, but electricity is still needed to run 24/7 the million validators securing the network.
Ethereum’s been proof-of-stake rather than proof-of-work for couple of years now, so it’s no longer energy intensive.
There inherently can’t be a way to make proof of work lies wasteful as long as there are people who want to do the work. If you make hardware more, then it makes it cheaper to do the same amount of work, so people buy more hardware and do more work and more power gets used. If you make hardware less efficient, people just use the old hardware. You have to abandon proof of work altogether and switch it to something else that isn’t inherently tied to energy usage.
I was hoping the work could be to solve protein folding or something.
But I guess that’s not how the ‘crypto’ part could ever work.
Check out gridcoin. They tried tying that to science projects.