Hear me out. On Reddit, the #solarpunk channel is decidedly anti-blockchain. To me, this is totally surprising and against the actual ethos of Solarpunk - to integrate technology for a bright, clean future.
Granted, blockchains don’t have much reputation in alternative circles. And for a good reason. A lot is just linked to scams, get-rich-quick dudes, and speculation, apart from energy consumption arguments.
But blockchain at its core is just a distributed database. One that has no central authority, can not be tampered with, cannot be altered, nor taken down if parametrized accordingly.
This allows - as a potential - to democratize access and value creation. Renewable energy is also fundamentally decentralized. Everyone can participate!
Now, with the costs of renewable energy creation (notably solar) shrunk significantly, and the demand for energy consumption rising heavily, if we only think about the booming electric vehicles alone -
What if people could earn money by generating solar energy and selling directly to vehicles, instead of the grid? I believe this could actually boost renewable energy generation over the roof.
Generators would be rewarded with a blockchain token for the energy generated, while consumers would pay for the energy in those tokens. Therefore speculation would be curbed as the tokens are for a real thing, energy, which on top is a stable unit - kWh.
Of course there are a lot of hurdles here - mostly institutional. Usually, energy is controlled by local authorities. They don’t want to allow anyone access to this market.
Then there is the distribution issue. Energy must be transported to the points of consumption, the charging stations. But due to the decentralized nature, this could actually result surprisingly cheap, as instead of transporting large distances, more charging stations in neighborhoods could reduce those distances. But still, this would require upfront charging stations and distribution investments.
I am an engineer. A dreamer. More often than not, as many many others, the realities of markets and economies clash with such ideals, thrashing generally good ideas.
But I wonder if such a scheme could made be possible. Anyone having some good suggestions? I mean mainly from the economics side. How to design the scheme, how to make it so that it is interesting to everyone? There are already several solar energy blockchains, but they kinda failed to get traction.
For the more radicals - I also dream of a money-less Solarpunk future, but to date, it seems further away than ever, looking at the right wing surge everywhere. Maybe we can build bridges at least from the technological side. Thank you if you got so far. Happy to respond to critique and questions.
money-less Solarpunk future
Don’t read that channel, but it sounds like another unworkable socialist utopia.
As for the title, current crypto miners love running their operations near hydro power plants - not because ecology, but because economics of such power plants make it really cheap.
Whole thing is a complex matter - there’s really nice coverage by Sabine Hossenfelder
Thaaank you for a different view on things, finally. To be honest, I am myself also a bit a critic of bitcoin - most of the bitcoin green talk is green-wash, after all…However, the thing is that blockchains and cryptocurrencies are still relatively recent science.
And the ONE single thing which moved me to write this post and share my idea, even if it was shattered (I don’t mind if it just not good enough), was one of the phrases in that video: “…SPEED UP THE TRANSITION TO RENEWABLE ENERGY, BECAUSE ENERGY IS MONEY”. That is exactly my thesis, and my whole thinking (now several years!) revolves around how to make it actually real. If renewable energy was literally money, then there would be no inflation, things should work much more stable, because you can’t print energy out of thin air!
So first of all thank you, and if you have more resources around how renewable energy is money, but especially, how to make it literally money (less so about bitcoin though), I’d immensely appreciate!
Renewables are an invisible revolution that everyone seems to be ignoring. I don’t know why, but if you look at the numbers, solar alone grows at staggering rate of ~20-25% EACH YEAR. This is a massive, exponential growth that won’t slow down until some limiting factor kicks in (either resource availability or price of electricity falls down)
Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
This is GLOBAL. This has nothing to do with ecology, I’ve run some rough estimations few years ago - solar is CHEAPER than fossil even in temperate climate. Similar story with the wind power - well managed renewable power plants print money, it’s a good business.
That said, this is about electricity production, fossil fuels are still unmached for transportation and this isn’t going to change any time soon
Here’s an idea. How about instead of paying money to buy a token that you then buy electricity with you just… Buy electricity. You can have a distrubuted system without the silly tokens that’s how stuff like torrents work. Or better idea go through some sort of central (maybe government!!) agency which has enough power to enforce people are fairly paid for the power they sell to what I’m going to call “the grid”.
Anyway fun fact my Grandpa, almost 2 decades ago plonked some solar panels on his barn and was able to sell the extra power to their utility provider. They lived so far out into the boonies that their neighbors literally kept and sold cows for a living so I’d like to assume pretty much anybody can do the same.
Because 99% of the time, the simplest solution is the best one, and the simplest solution never involves blockchain in any capacity. In this case, the simplest solution involves money. Currency exists for a reason, whether you like it or not.
Also, for real-world use, not being able to alter information in the system is a bug, not a feature, because it prevents the correction of mistakes. And there will always be mistakes, because humans.
Of course solarpunk is anti-blockchain. The unnecessary and wasteful energy use is the antithesis of everything that solarpunk is. Blockchain is very much a cyberpunk technology.
You too are conflating blockchains with cryptocurrencies using proof-of-work. This is simply not what blockchains are.
This sounds like a solution looking for a problem. We know how to build green infrastructure. Many countries have done it. China has shown how it’s done, many other countries have done a lot too, albeit using Chinese inputs.
Also if your solution does not allow for debt, it will be unnecessarily slow in the rate of growth. Building green infrastructure is a great example for positive use of debt.
Currency, the term you are looking for is currency.
The way you exchange value for goods and services without needlessly attaching an energy wasting puzzel game to it is to not do it!
Just have physical or digital currency in USD or some other real world currency that doesn’t require a blockchain and doesn’t have its amount artificially capped by processing power. It’s a dumb idea made by con men to take money from people.
I agree as long as you talk bitcoin. But blockchains are NOT just cryptocurrencies, and not all currencies work as you describe like bitcoin.
BTW, when we have digital USD, say goodbye to your financial freedom. The government can (and will) tax you whenever they want whatever they want for the reasons they want (we need to save the economy, we need to bail out banks, etc.). They can even shut you down completely by closing access to your accounts. Because they will only allow the use of the digital dollar, because they will have full control. A totalitarian regime’s dream.
Lmao yeah sure, conpared to now, where the government sets taxes and you pay it already? That doesn’t sound much different tbh
You can evade taxe today. And the government does not have direct access to your bank account right now. It will with a digital USD, and because everything will have to run through their digital USD, everything is tracked, and you can’t evade anything. Give it a thought, there is a huge difference.
But…they can already do all of that? And nothing is stopping you from having a secret offshore account in a foreign currency, instead of cryptocoins.
No they cannot. You still have cash today, which also allows for anonymous transactions and which you can stash away. If today they’d try grabbing your money from your account, you could just move it away. That wouldn’t be possible anymore without approval, count on that. A digital USD is totally not the same, they’d probably just ban cash. It will be all nightmares becoming real. Not saying here crypto currencies are a panacea and the solution, just warning of the woes of a digital USD.
I think this idea has at least two problems:
- Energy consumption is only a problem for outdated cryptos like bitcoin. Prettymuch every modern crypto runs on much more efficient proof-of-stake, etc.
- Even if we wanted a solar crypto, how would we verify that it’s generated by solar power?
I thought the same way as validating in Proof-of-Stake works: The devices have a private key (yes there are issues there about securing them for non-authorized access, but they can largely be addressed like also nodes do) which is registered on the blockchain. Then only these registered devices can issue coins. This is critical and there might be a lot of ways this could be hackable, which could or could not be mitigated. However I thought it’s not more of a challenge than running say an Ethereum or any other node.
This isn’t anything like how validating in proof-of-stake works (at least not in Ethereum’s version, which is the one I’m familiar with). Validating is permissionless. Anyone can set up a validating account, there’s no authority that can reject you.
Who “authorizes” keys to determine if a particular solarpunk miner is sufficiently solarpunk?
Yeah that is the single most important issue why the whole project is probably flawed. It was addressed in some other comment by some other thoughful commentator in a slightly different way. I know Ethereum (and other PoS chains) pretty well too, and I understand permissionless.
It shouldn’t be authorized. Ideally, through the energy meter, only solar (and other renewable) energy generated should be able to mint the coins. There should be some kind of protocol or consensus mechanism that would accomplish that. I guess no such protocol exists :) Thanks!
Proof of stake is a centralized system. If access to your ledger is going to remain centralized then there’s no need for it to be a blockchain. You can just have a regular distributed database.
Also, “Proof of stake” would just mean that the owners of the ledger are unaccountable random rich guys instead of the shareholders of the utility company. That’s a distinction with absolutely zero difference.
No, that’s not how proof of stake works. Or it doesn’t have to, at any rate. Ethereum’s staking token is not a governance token, holding a lot of it doesn’t give you any “ownership” of the blockchain as a whole.
Quite the opposite in fact, if you’re staking millions of dollars worth of tokens then that means the blockchain has millions of dollars worth of your assets “held hostage” to ensure you follow the blockchain’s rules. If you don’t then the hostage gets slashed.
“Or doesn’t have to”. So you admit it?
Admit what? There are a huge range of possible designs that could be called “Proof of Stake”, and some of them could easily have that flaw. You can always design something poorly. Ethereum, the most widely used Proof of Stake token, doesn’t have that flaw in its design.
Of course it does. A million validators on less than 15,000 nodes? The top 100 accounts already own 35% of the network and rising? The top 0.005% of accounts own more than 78%? A Gini coefficient worse than Ukraine? A Nakamoto index of 3?
Ethereum is only months from a level of wealth concentration that would give Lido and Coinbase a combined 51% of the stake.
I have little to say about this because it’s basically nonsense.
The top 100 accounts already own 35% of the network and rising … that would give Lido and Coinbase a combined 51% of the stake
These two statements are completely incompatible with each other, for example. Also, the top 100 accounts only holding 35% of the network is remarkably good. And Lido is not controlled by a single individual or organization. And holding 51% of the stake means nothing on Ethereum, it works differently from Bitcoin. And the Gini coefficient is something that applies to national economies, not to blockchains. And I could go on, but this is just nonsense and you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Like most new technologies these days, blockchain doesn’t add anything besides a layer of plausible deniability for the rich to hide behind when they inevitably steal from the poor.
The blockchain isn’t “new” at this point either. It’s been around for 15 years.
But blockchain at its core is just a distributed database. One that has no central authority, can not be tampered with, cannot be altered, nor taken down if parametrized accordingly.
Which is completely useless if the data that goes into that blockchain isn’t guaranteed to be correct. And if there’s money in it you can bet your ass that someone will try to game the system.
You’re also glossing over the existing grid that needs money to be maintained while complaining that energy companies want money. Yes, there’s a general problem where society allowed (and partly encouraged) sociopaths to be unrestrained greedy assholes that needs some kind of solution, but not all companies are useless leeches, it’s “just” an all-pervading corruption that needs to be dealt with - and as long as that hasn’t happened, every idealistic solution faces the threat of being corrupted itself.
Which is completely useless if the data that goes into that blockchain isn’t guaranteed to be correct.
You’re missing the point of this. It just matters that it’s consistent. The transactions that are put into the blockchain just have to follow the rules of the blockchain and be the same for everyone who reads the blockchain. That’s all that “correctness” means as far as the blockchain is concerned.
And if there’s money in it you can bet your ass that someone will try to game the system.
Blockchains depend on everyone involved trying to game the system. They’re built using game theory to ensure that the most selfish actions for any particular actor are the best ones for the blockchain as a whole.
It just matters that it’s consistent. The transactions that are put into the blockchain just have to follow the rules of the blockchain and be the same for everyone who reads the blockchain. That’s all that “correctness” means as far as the blockchain is concerned.
Still useless for anything that depends on external data, since there can be no guarantee that what has been entered is correct. What’s the point of a consistent record of garbage?
Can’t disagree, but then why do we think Solarpunk? To have some nice pictures and inspiring stories?
Solarpunk is an anti-capitalist aesthetic, not a coherent political ideology.
Here’s the basic problem with this solution as far as I can see: assuming we’re talking about a distributed public ledger blockchain, you haven’t described how the chain is secured.
The existence of systems like “proof of work” and “proof of stake” is based on the need to have some sort of proving mechanism for validator nodes. You have to solve the sibyl problem, or else someone can just run 10,000 copies of the validator software on one computer, submit enough votes for a false record that it overwhelms any competing votes, and thus create their own version of the chain - now authorized as the definitive and true version - where they get free energy for life because they’re so staggeringly wealthy in your new currency.
Distributed public ledgers only work if you insert a real world cost to validation. Basically, something of value must be committed or destroyed in order to authorize a validator node. Otherwise you have to authorize the nodes yourself, and now you’ve just reinserted a central authority.
So what is destroyed or committed to secure your chain? Assuming proof of work, it would be hardware and energy. People would be burning power solving increasingly complex and entirely meaningless math problems in order to be allowed to act as a validator. So now we run into the problem of incentive; why would they do this? In basically every public ledger blockchain that exists, the answer is that they get paid. Newly created tokens are given out to validators as a reward for their work. And, inherently, those tokens must be worth more than the cost of doing that garbage work in order for validators to actually benefit in any way. Without that, the incentives don’t work, and the validator nodes all shut down, destroying your blockchain.
This is why speculation and rampant deflation are inherent to cryptocurrencies; because in order for the validator system to not be overwhelmed by a single bad actor buying a tonne of computer hardware, the complexity of the validation (hence, the cost of the work in spent energy) must scale with the amount of hardware in the network, and that means that the cost of being a validator scales with the amount of hardware in the network. So as your network grows, the value of the token grows, or else the network dies.
But you’ve decided that people will also be rewarded with a token for the actual physical act of generating solar power and feeding it to the grid. And they’ll pay for power with those tokens. So your system is unbalanced. You pay people to generate power with newly created tokens, and then destroy those tokens when they’re spent to buy power. But you, presumably, also pay people to run validator nodes (because how else is your network secured?) using newly generated tokens, so you’re giving out more tokens than the actual amount of generated power in the system. That means you have too many tokens chasing a limited supply of goods.
So now you either have to allow people to overbid for power, creating rampant runaway inflation, or you have to keep the cost per kwh fixed, and create a situation where people go to get power but there’s none in the system, because you’ve got floating, “empty” tokens that don’t actually reflect a unit of power generated. And since you’re paying for power going into the system with these tokens, either way you’re destroying their perceived value and that means you’ve destroyed any incentive to sell power to your network in the first place. They’ll just sell to the grid instead.
And moving to Proof of Stake or Proof of Storage or any other proving mechanism doesn’t solve this problem, because ultimately they all rely on the validator committing something of value. If they don’t, it’s by definition no longer a proving mechanism, because the cost of sibyl attack becomes zero (or close enough to zero as to be meaningless). And if every validator must offer something of value, they must get something of value. Which means you have to generate tokens and give them out to the validators, and you have to ensure that those tokens have a real-world worth that is commensurate to the value that the validators commit.
You have to solve the sibyl problem, or else someone can just run 10,000 copies of the validator software on one computer,
That’s solved on Ethereum by requiring you to stake tokens that cost money. You would need an enormous amount of money to afford to spin up 10000 validators.
submit enough votes for a false record that it overwhelms any competing votes
I’m afraid you’re not very familiar with how Ethereum works. 10,000 validators isn’t anywhere near enough to disrupt the system, all you would do is burn your stake and lose all that money if you tried that.
Even if you acquired enough stake to prevent finality - 2/3 of the total stake would be required, costing tens of billions of dollars and taking years to work your way through the entry queue - all you’d do then is cause a huge annoyance to everyone on the system while your tens of billions rapidly burned down to below the threshold and finality resumed again. You wouldn’t be able to insert “fake” transactions.
People have been working on blockchain technology for a long time, these sorts of basic attacks have long ago been accounted for.
Yep, real blockchain know-how here. I answered to this partly here I think (if I am linking correctly) https://slrpnk.net/post/17009217/13027204. The real issue there is how would anyone be prevented to register a new private key as a validator. Hard-wiring that into the hardware creates new problems. So I guess this is the argument where it all could fall apart, just technically. Thanks.
So, if I understand your pitch correctly (and, let’s be clear, this is information that needed to be presented right off the bat if you actually wanted to communicate this idea effectively), you’re envisaging a model where you sell some kind of hardware, presumably a complete solar panel kit of some sort, which then acts as a uniquely authorized validator node on your network, while also accounting for each unit of power pushed by that panel. As validator nodes, each panel contains a full copy of the database, and acts to verify new transactions, ensuring the integrity and security of your blockchain.
I’ll allow, for the sake of your argument, that your keys and code are sufficiently secure that you’ve accounted for basically any possible hacking risk. We don’t need to get into that argument. While in practice perfect security is impossible, for now we’ll say that your hypothetical security is “good enough.”
Right off the bat, we run into the following challenge:
- If the device is an all in one, including the panel, your idea is dead from the start, because your target audience wants to install their own panels and then share their excess power, effectively banking it for later. You’re not going to convince them to use this bespoke solution just to take advantage of your charging network concept. Your plan cannot rely on you beating out every other solar panel manufacturer in the world; that is lunacy.
- If the device is distinct from the power source, like some kind of box that you interconnect between the power source and your grid, there’s basically no technical soution I can conceive of that would prevent someone from plugging it into their state / national grid and converting off-peak electricity into solar credits that they then bank for on peak hours.
Its remotely possible that the economics of the whole thing makes the latter option unappealing, but if so, I can’t see it. At best you’ve basically removed the incentive to use solar that the scheme is supposed to offer.
Another technical issue with this approach is that you want these devices to be usable wherever the sun shines, but in order for them to be able to each act as a validator node they have to each contain a full copy of the database, and that means having at least a decent internet connection if this system is ever supposed to scale. That isn’t going to work out at the cabin.
But even supposing those problems are solvable, and supposing that you can solve the problem of how the power gets from the panel to the charging stations without going through the local power company, we’re left with this question: Why blockchain?
You say that you want this to be distributed, public, not under the control of any one entity, but your keys would have to be authorized by a central authority. You would have to be the only producer of these devices to ensure that some unscrupulous individual doesn’t build a box that runs a hundred validators at once, exposing you to sibyl attacks again. You would also have the ability to revoke any key at any time. There would be nothing truly decentralized about this system.
Yeah this is the best critique in all the answers. I was aware of most of these issues, and I hoped that by sharing the idea, ways to improve it and make it viable would emerge. I was thinking that the same way solar energy can be metered and sold today (after all, you can’t lie about having generated energy you haven’t, can you?), the infrastructure issues could be addressed (being the meter the actual node, and possibly as some kind of light node, which wouldn’t have to store the whole chain). The most important goal however was to boost decentralized solar energy generation, and make it profitable to individuals and self-organizing communities, instead of relying on our slow, gating institutions. Think of shanty-towns in the tropics which could suddenly be contributing to a cleaner world while also resulting to be better off (some credit scheme or something would be required for their investment costs, of course). If this idea doesn’t reach those goals, it’s useless.
I still believe blockchains have potential but this is maybe not the best use case. Thanks!
This still feels like it’s not answering the fundamental question for any blockchain project: why is this a blockchain instead of just a database with well configured permissions, and why are the advantages of the blockchain relevant to the problem it’s trying to solve? Traditional databases can be configured to be append only, accept new data from users without needing a central authority to approve each new user, be queried by any random person, etc far more efficiently than a blockchain could and without requiring every solar panel owner to download multiple terabytes of historical transaction data just to run their panel.
As for the coins, they don’t really add democratic control over a system so much as they empower whoever is best able to maximize coin generation. In a democratic system, 100 small solar panel owners would have more of a say in the governance of solar panels than 1 really wealthy South African billionaire, because they would represent more votes than the billionaire. In the coin economy, if the billionaire has at least twice as many solar panels as the rest of the small owners put together, the billionaire would have sole control over the governance of solar panels because they would be generating twice as many coins.
I admit I’m skeptic to see anything blockchain or coin related, but I’ve yet to see a problem that either technology are solving for other than “I want to be able to do financial transactions over the internet without using a bank or bank-like institution” and “I want an extremely volatile asset to speculate on”
A blockchain that uses proof-of-work would waste far more energy than it would save, just on doing the accounting. What blockchain do you propose using that would have a minimal transaction cost, in watts and in coin?
If we’re talking about local charging of EVs, I guess that would be a little like putting a gas pump in my front yard for my neighbors to use. Probably going to hit zoning issues if you open that up to general commercial use.
How does a ‘solar energy blockchain’ know where the electricity used to run it comes from? There’s no difference between 120v ac coming from a generator or coming from the grid, or coming from a solar array.
Besides the fact that you’re using Blockchain to mean Crypto Currency, this is unrealistic and counterproductive in a number of ways.
What if people could earn money by generating solar energy and selling directly to vehicles, instead of the grid?
How? How do you get your rooftop power to a buyer across town, or the other side of the country? Corporations or municipalities still control the grid
Then there is the distribution issue. Energy must be transported to the points of consumption, the charging stations. But due to the decentralized nature, this could actually result surprisingly cheap, as instead of transporting large distances, more charging stations in neighborhoods could reduce those distances. But still, this would require upfront charging stations and distribution investments.
You caught it yourself. Are you proposing an alternative grid? Good luck with that. Putting a charging station on your own property and renting that out via crypto? That’s a massive waste of space, since you’ll now need an additional parking spot for every home
Generators would be rewarded with a blockchain token for the energy generated, while consumers would pay for the energy in those tokens. Therefore speculation would be curbed as the tokens are for a real thing, energy, which on top is a stable unit - kWh.
How do you get tokens, if you consume more than you produce? You buy them with money. So saying it curbs speculation rings hollow. Besides, who rewards these tokens? Contrary to Bitcoin etc. you need physical hardware to confirm the proper amount of energy was transferred, and hardware can be tampered with.
What we need are communal, shared infrastructure and an end to growth. Not more electric cars, and certainly not more individualistic, crypto-capitalist tech fetishism. I don’t mean this as an affront to you, but this whole suggestion runs contrary to all that Solarpunk is about
So the primary reason I wrote this post was not to talk about something I am convinced of as a solution, but exactly for people to drill holes and fire everything they have at it. If I don’t have the answers, it would not work in real life. So first of all tI am grateful to everyone who is chiming in.
There is a fundamental aversion in Solarpunk circles towards blockchains. I don’t want to change that, nor argue against that. The crypto space has earned this aversion all by themselves. There is obvious abuse and misallocation through these concepts.
I am an engineer. I have fought all my life to get a balance between my affinity to tech and the harm we are doing to the planet. But - we can’t just all get back to be farmers, can we? I love Solarpunk because it inspires to get to that balance, where we don’t need all to go back to bare basics, but use technology for a harmonious life with our host planet.
Technology is a big word. Can we demonize technology in general? Is the Internet bad? Are EVs bad? Are solar panels bad (think of what it takes to create them!). I am sure that is not an issue here, or so I hope.
Blockchains. Again, blockchains are just data structures. Fundamentally, numbers linked to other numbers. Yes, they require energy, but so does the entire Internet. You wouldn’t blame the Internet as a whole just because it’s used for capitalist maximalization, much more than blockchains are being used for that? Should we stop using it because big corps make most of their money nowadays through the Internet?
Blockchains are also just tools. Yes, most stuff is anti-thetic to Solarpunk. Notwithstanding, I (and many others) believe it has potential to bring about some change. They are fundamentally a more democratic tool because they lower the barrier to entry. Everyone can participate, and nobody can take that away from you. We can argue about democracy too, as democracy per se is a very abstract concept as well, and there are no absolutes nor silver bullets. Every community of any scale has to work it out for themselves, but it’s blatantly obvious that what we call today Democracy is a farce.
Associating crypto-technology to “crypto-capitalist tech fetishism” exclusively, however, is, excuse my counter-pun here, which I also present without personal affront, not understanding the technology as such. There are donating platforms built with crypto. There are also dedicated crypto-leftist groups, check out https://www.reddit.com/r/cryptoleftists/ or their discord channel. There are bioregional and regenerative finance projects who channel resources to people doing great (solarpunk) stuff on the ground. There are a lot of many more great ideas based on crypto. A lot of them fail to get attraction, a lot fail altogether as a project, a lot are too idealistic, a lot just fall under the radar, and a lot are useless. A lot could be done without blockchains, or not at all.
I was not trying to convince anyone that this solar crypto stuff IS Solarpunk, I only tried to get feedback to the question if it is a feasible project with some beneficial properties, these being for example to communally govern resources, and providing income to people (what if shanty-towns would have their solar roofs. A game changer for them) while further boosting solar energy generation. Frankly after reading some replies it doesn’t look like. I don’t mind if people say it is or not Solarpunk, or all the other (always welcomed) dismissing and rejecting critique. The aim was to try to identify if there is merit in even trying. And it looks there isn’t, purely based on practical and economical criteria, like some you did point out in your reply.
“Communal, shared infrastructure” is an abstract concept as well. There is a tension rarely talked about, and it is if this means we need to go back living in small village-like communities only. It often sounds like that. Is that really the end game? I am not sure. In that case yes, blockchains and a whole lot of other stuff are superfluous. However, I assume most people writing here live in cities, with a romanticized ideal of what it means to live in small close-knit communities, because they never actually had the chance to do that. I have. And I have lived in cities. The population share living in cities is constantly growing. Most city people want to continue living in cities. So what we do? Can “Communal, shared infrastructure without growth” as a concept be applied to all scales? Maybe it can, and blockchains could be a powerful tool to mediate the transition to that, due to their unique characteristics of accountability, transparency and decentralization.
Or maybe not. That’s totally fine.
Because crypto is a scam.
Please explain the scam.
FWIW I agree that capitalism is a scam but I think crypto is a slight improvement over imperial currencies.
Sure here you go. Crypto can’t be actually used for money. It has no intrinsic value and since the price fluctuates so rapidly it can’t be used at store checkouts because the store owner can lose their shirt in the time it takes to convert the crypto garbage to real money. The only value that it has is the added value of other suckers adding their money to the pyramid scheme. Bitcoin and all its little scam buddies are a piece of shit that needs to be flushed.
There are a type of tokens called stablecoins that are specifically designed to have a consistent price over time. Use those for your store checkouts.
Crypto is just capitalism with fewer safety nets. No FDIC insurance on deposits and no SEC to prevent scams and fraud.
I can’t blame you for this sentiment because there is a lot of scamming. So is the current monetary system btw, even at a bigger and blunt scale.
Crypto is just math, what people do with it is something different. It’s a tool, and it can be used for good as for bad.
Crypto does not offer any real value other than to scam people it is a shit sandwich.
Perhaps I’m too tired to understand your meaning here (it’s late), but blockchain isn’t crypto currency. It’s a distributed ledger, and was around long before crypto. It’s not completely immutable either as the hard fork of Ethereum proved.
Blockchain could be used to record energy transactions, but the question is why would you want to? What benefit does it add?
Btw homeowners in parts of Australia are already receiving credits for the excess solar power they generate. There’s no need to manufacture a new system to enable that functionality.
Once again, I’m tired. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your reasoning.
It’s not an open market though. It’s gated and you are at the mercy of the local authorities, which often are very restrictive and difficult. It’s not even possible everywhere. Plus, you don’t get paid the market price, as they naturally want to maintain their monopoly and want to scoop.the profit of reselling.
While all the maintenance costs are still up to you.
It’s not an open market though. It’s gated and you are at the mercy of the local authorities, which often are very restrictive and difficult.
Utility services are natural monopolies.
Are you proposing that people build a totally independent electrical grid that somehow isn’t regulated by local authorities?
Communal, local infrastructure. Not a grid spanning vast areas, although it could. Look, this might totally not be the way to do it, but essentially to achieve independence we need to break up those monopolies. Otherwise we will always be enslaved to the powers that I thought we wanted to replace. Energy and food independence as well as communal land management I think are fundamental requirements for that - whatever the means, I subscribe. Otherwise I don’t see how a Solarpunk future can be even envisioned.
Blockchains (if used correctly) are good at breaking up such monopolies. But it’s just tech. People need to want and do it. So whatever people say :)
Communal, local infrastructure. Not a grid spanning vast areas, although it could.
Then why does it need a global management system? If it’s all local, why not use a local database and save the expense of distributing it?
Look, this might totally not be the way to do it, but essentially to achieve independence we need to break up those monopolies.
Independence from what?
If you’re talking about independence from having to share electricity services with other people then you can just go off the grid, no blockchain necessary.
If you’re talking about independence from utility providers then you’ve crafted a tautology, as the only way to achieve independence is to be independent.
If you’re talking about independence from for-profit grid service utilities, then making every home an independent participant in the real-time electricity market will only compound the problem.
Otherwise we will always be enslaved to the powers that I thought we wanted to replace.
Those powers would still exist. Replacing the utility-scale grid operators with a local electric homeowners’ association doesn’t solve the problem, it just moves it closer to home. You still have to deal with the cost of building and maintaining the grid, as well as constant negotiation with all providers and consumers to ensure that the grid will remain stable.
Energy and food independence as well as communal land management I think are fundamental requirements for that - whatever the means, I subscribe.
Adding blockchain makes those goals more complicated to achieve for no benefit.
If you want energy and food independence, you can just do that.
Blockchains (if used correctly) are good at breaking up such monopolies. But it’s just tech. People need to want and do it. So whatever people say :)
False. Blockchains, as a feature of Capitalism, create monopolies. If they broke them up, then the tech bros would have already replaced the banking system with them. What actually happened is that the existing banking system started using crypto too, so now most blockchain-based value is held by an extremely small number of obscenely wealthy folks.
That’s incorrect. Blockchains are not a feature of capitalism. Cryptocurrencies (mostly) are. The only reason why they haven’t been able to replace the banking system is that they live in a purely digital realm. What can you do with some digital tokens which you have obtained bypassing the government and powers? Not much. If you want to buy a house, or a car or anything substantial, you have to legalize your earnings, essentially mooting the very thing the “revolutionaries” thought they were doing (bringing down the banking system). So, they moved to do DeFi and other “virtual” stuff (basically a Casino), pretending they never meant to do that.
I still believe blockchains have potential, but I agree with most commentators here, not for the wrong use cases. And my own idea seems to be the wrong use case. Alas, my goal was to increase and incentivize solar energy generation while giving control to people and communities, more than what utility companies allow us to do.
Solarpunk is embedded in leftist thought, and the endgame would include becoming a moneyless society. There’s various debates on how to get there from here.
Does crypto help with the transition? I would say no. It requires hooking up more renewable energy just for the sake of money.
Blockchain is an accounting system first, which happens to underpin a lot of the crypto money space. But it has nothing to do with money per se.
In a future moneyless society, is everyone free to consume as much as they want? Maybe that works, I don’t have an answer, but maybe it’s also an option to just account for everyone’s consumption (maybe in absolute terms, e.g. kWh?), and apply some limits. The disregard of limits is probably the first culprit against sustainability, and this society is not the first in failing there.
Generally, the aim is to rely on mutual aid and community. People don’t consume beyond the system’s ability to support them because their neighbors take a dim view of that, and they rely on their neighbors for a lot. Of course, this would take a significant change in how we do things under capitalism.
Having a chain of hashes that need to be verified and created doesn’t seem to have any application that would move us there. The issues to solve are largely social, not technical.
Your reasoning is sound and consistent. I am not going to argue against that because I have thought for a long time the same way.
But I strongly doubt, having got older and observed a lot how the world works, that this is going to happen in any foreseeable time frame. Even if I would myself wish it was that way.
We are a huuuge minority thinking that way. People are blinded by ever more distraction, consumption, goods, and also extensive travelling all over the world. They all WANT that, even if it’s an illusion making them unhappy in cases. I am not religious, but do you know the tale of Noah? He basically was telling people that something was coming, but they all ignored him. They were (and will be) dancing as long as the music plays.
So if you think we are magically turning people’s minds towards that - I don’t think that will happen, ever. The only way will be a total societal collapse, but that will be ugly, and I don’t think in that scenario we will get to utopia.
Now you may say it’s exactly people like me who prevent this from becoming real. Maybe, but I am tired of being accused things for problems I didn’t create, and feeling bad about being realistic about how I think things could unfold.
It’s as realistic as your scenario to think that using technological means can get us to a Solarpunk future. In fact, Solarpunk is a lot about technology, but technology at the service of all people and not just a few. THAT is the social issue. And it has persisted through all ages and empires, because it is agnostic to technology.
Maybe we are all just helpless dreamers, and any of this whatsoever will happen. I think we should just be sympathetic of each other and not dismiss too much ahead of time.
You are also using a device to debate here, and that is a technological tool. You have an idea what is behind the Internet, with all its devices and the accumulated consumption? We could say if it’s only social then we should organize in real life and don’t waste time online?
But you need folks to work with you today, so you use what is available. I don’t care if whatever I think about today will be obsolete in x years, nobody can predict the future. I am also only just trying to contribute to get us there, not to be right.
OK, but how does a chain of verified hashes help us get there? No matter if that’s going to happen tomorrow or in 100 years?
I don’t know! Maybe it does, maybe not. I am not claiming it does. I like to think about what COULD. Maybe THIS is not the way, I never claimed it does, I am thankful for all replies, which help honing my thinking. But someone may have a brilliant idea.
Then I think you’ve answered your initial question: people don’t talk about it because there’s no apparent way it can help. If someone does come up with a good idea, then that will change. Until then, there isn’t much to talk about.
Frankly, I don’t think that will happen. Blockchain has been around a while now and its usefulness as currency is dubious, and its usefulness for anything else has failed to emerge on any scale.
