Consider the future ecological impact of NEO

[PBSJ]

With the looming climate change emergency I have mixed feelings about Bitcoin.

Sure, it's a revolutionary system that challenges the very core of the financial/political status quo.

But I baulk at its environmental impact. What's the point in overcoming inequality if we destroy our very existence in the process?

I recently started to look into NEO's energy footprint. On the face of it the situation is much improved.

A consensus node only requires the hardware of a pretty average laptop (say 100W).

Therefore a single standard on-shore wind turbine (~2.5MW) could power 25,000 consensus nodes.

The largest off-shore wind turbines (~12MW) could power over 100,000 nodes.

So, at first glance, it seems there's no comparison between Bitcoin (consuming the energy requirements of a small country) vs NEO (a couple of wind turbines).

However, I don't yet fully understand the implications of the voting mechanism for NEO.

As the consensus is decided by having more nodes agree than don't agree, my fear is that a type of 'arms race' could be triggered due to competing NEO superpowers attempting to control the network.

This would result in each side attempting to gain more and more consensus nodes. The end result would be similar to the struggle for power by the Bitcoin mining community but with each side adding more and more nodes and could result in a vast increase in needless power consumption.

Would be interested to understand what NEO has in place to prevent such an 'arms race' from developing.

I gather there is no upper limit to the number of nodes that can be added to the network?

[vncoelho]

Hi @PBSJ,

My PhD was in Electrical Engineering and I can share my experience along my life here a little bit.

Me and @igormcoelho where born in a city that has been mentioned as the city the world with most diverse set of minerals, it is called Ouro Preto/MG, Brazil: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Ouro+Preto+Brazil&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images
It was once the capital of Brazil. Around here you could extract gold, diamonds and many other minerals.
Nowadays, it is fulfilled of iron companies and, consequent, catastrophes that are destroying our rivers, indigenous villages and much more.

In this sense, during our life we have been wondering about mining. Furthermore, part of our research studies were for optimizing mining production and we won several prizes with that.
That's a little ambiguous, no?

I love the space and astronomy, that is why I also think that the Universe has many resources, in which even the Earth will be recycled by plate tectonics. One day, mining can even reach other planets. That is why we need quantics and quantum communication (if that is really possible) - Around the end of 2017 Bell's inequality has been broken.

Talking about this can probably give a light to your questions:

But I baulk at its environmental impact. What's the point in overcoming inequality if we destroy our very existence in the process?

I agree with that, currently, Bitcoin hash power almost reach the most powerful usine we have here in Brazil, Itaipu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam
But look, this Usine already destroyed one of the most beautifull waterfalls WE USED to have in South America.

So, where is the error here? Maybe it is the energy resource. We need each time better energy resources. Energy is the next token!
That is why we have been also designing several applications for energy trading on the Blockchain.

So, at first glance, it seems there's no comparison between Bitcoin (consuming the energy requirements of a small country) vs NEO (a couple of wind turbines).

Surely, NEO multi-agent system based consensus could even run on smartphone on people daily use around Digital and Smart Cities. Check out recent published book: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-12255-3

However, I don't yet fully understand the implications of the voting mechanism for NEO.

The implications of voting mechanisms are participation of NEO Holder in the selection of nodes.

Would be interested to understand what NEO has in place to prevent such an 'arms race' from developing.
I gather there is no upper limit to the number of nodes that can be added to the network?

There is a system limit fee of 1000 GAS to become a consensus node: https://neo-ngd.github.io/reference/How-To-Become-NEO-Consensus-Node.html

Your discussions in right, in a scenario where NEO holder have a tremendous supply of GAS and can elect many nodes.

But why would they do that if that would increase maintenance complexity and their costs? Why they will not balance a trade-off between controlling the network with the minimum amount of nodes in which they can be the majority.
That optimization would surely occurs.

[PBSJ]

Thanks for the reply Vitor :-)

I love the space and astronomy, that is why I also > think that the Universe has many resources, in
which even the Earth will be recycled by plate
tectonics.

I agree with you that eventually the planet will be 'recycled' beyond recognition by terrestrial and extraterrestrial forces. But that may take a little while eh :-)

I'm sorry to hear that your home town has suffered from iron mining. That sucks.

I guess my great fear is that we create a situation in which humanity is unable to react fast enough to resolve.

I do have a lot of faith in human innovation and technology but I think it's also worth realising that not every problem can be solved by a reactive approach - some require a proactive approach. For example if you are standing in a firing line about to be executed by rifle you simply cannot react fast enough to dodge the bullet, whereas a proactive approach may have prevented you from finding yourself in the firing line in the first place.

So, to summarise, I feel timing is crucial for humanity - there is a delicate balance between developing new ways to sustain our society and destroying the environment that sustains our society.

So, where is the error here? Maybe it is the energy > resource. We need each time better energy
resources. Energy is the next token!

I 100% agree with this. My background is in maths and physics and my tendency is to view the world through a filter that always reverts back to energy as the base level.

I wouldn't say that energy is the next token, I'd say that it has been, and always will be, the ultimate fundamental medium of exchange :-)

I am certain that we will continue to find new sources of energy - whether we find enough new sources to maintain our current society is an uncertainty for me. However, if we do crack nuclear fusion then all bets are off for the next few millennia

Surely, NEO multi-agent system based consensus > could even run on smartphone on people daily
use around Digital and Smart Cities. Check out
recent published book:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-12255-3

Thanks for this - I'll take a look through!

Your discussions in right, in a scenario where
NEO holder have a tremendous supply of GAS
and can elect many nodes.

But why would they do that if that would increase > maintenance complexity and their costs?

My concern here is if 2 powers are competing for control, in which case each would try to gain more and more nodes without an upper limit (except perhaps if they can no longer afford the GAS, as you pointed out - I would be interested to make a quick calculation to see what kind of numbers would be involved here if large state powers put their resources into trying to control NEO. How many nodes would a power like the US and China need to gain a majority over the other if both are hell-bent on gaining a majority?)

[EdgeDLT]

Hey @PBSJ. Lower carbon footprint is definitely one of the benefits of delegated networks. We'll always have a lower number of active validators, so we're a little more efficient on that front.

The advantage that we really have over a network like Bitcoin is that we have no need for very resource intensive PoW, which demands a lot of hashing power and therefore energy. Doesn't really matter how many nodes Neo eventually has, it'll always consume far less due to the efficiency of its consensus protocol.

My concern here is if 2 powers are competing for control, in which case each would try to gain more and more nodes without an upper limit

The premise here is not quite right. The number of consensus nodes is not decided by how many people register as candidates, it's something that is voted on by NEO holders. There is no reason to run additional nodes in an attempt to gain control because the voting mechanism is what decides both the number of active consensus nodes and which entities may operate them.

It's not possible to brute force control with hardware in the same way that you can in a network relying on PoW consensus. You'd have to use an economic attack vector, i.e gain control of 66% of the NEO supply and vote enough of your own nodes in to form a majority for consensus.

[roman-khimov]

Neo's dBFT is as eco-friendly as it could possibly be, so maybe it's time to close this issue.