►
From YouTube: Building a Sustainable Web3 - Alex DeVries
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
So
in
case
you
don't
know
me,
you
may
have
heard
about
the
amount
of
energy
that
bitcoin
consumes
and
in
a
lot
of
cases
that
data
is
being
sourced
from
my
website,
digicolonist
and
sometimes,
alternatively,
the
cambridge
website.
They
also
provide
this
data,
but
in
a
lot
of
cases
it's
coming
from
me
and
I've
been
working
on
this
topic
for
over
six
years
now.
A
I
think
I
also
turned
this
into
a
bit
of
a
phd
project
on
crypto
asset
sustainability,
and
what
I
want
to
talk
about
today
is
how
do
we
build
a
sustainable
web
3.,
and
the
first
thing
that
I
should
address
is
why
do
we
need
to
talk
about
this
in
the
first
place,
and
the
best
thing
to
illustrate
that
with
is
with
one
webtree
application?
That
is
definitely
causing
a
lot
of
uproar
with
regard
to
sustainability,
obviously
bitcoin
itself
and
as
you'll
see
these
headlines
all
talk
about
some
effect
that
bitcoin
or
crypto
mining
has.
A
Maybe
we
can
just
take
a
moment
to
grow
through
these
headlines.
First
of
all,
in
the
top
left
eu
agreeing
on
landmark
climate
legislations.
Well,
actually,
the
eu
was
on
the
verge
of
completely
banning
any
kind
of
trading
activities
in
proof
of
work,
related
networks
and
that
narrowly
got
rejected,
and
then
they
came
up
with
increased
climate
disclosure
requirements
which
they're
going
to
enforce
in
their
new
market
encrypt
asset
legislation,
but
disclosure
seems
to
be
a
bit
of
a
trend,
but
also
has
also
the
us
is
actively
looking
to.
A
It's
a
bigger.
No,
I
mean
we
have
estimates,
but
we
want
to
get
information
directly
from
the
source
about
the
impact
that
these
that
this
industry
has
on
the
world
and
it's
not
just
the
environment,
there's
also
something
on
electricity
rates
when
you're,
adding
demand
to
a
grid
and
you're,
giving
that
away
to
minus
the
rest
of
the
grid
has
to
compete
for
less
supply.
So
you
also
get
rising
electricity
rates
and
you
have
to
make
choices
in
places
like
europe.
Electricity
is
getting
extremely
scarce.
A
You
have
a
limited
supply
in
sweden.
It's
one
example
where
crypto
miners
are
using
a
lot
of
renewables,
but
that's
actually
a
country
that
doesn't
want
to
have
these
miners
on
their
grid.
In
any
case,
so
you
end
up
with
all
of
these
headlines,
and
the
most
shocking
thing
about
these
headlines
to
me
is
that
they
don't
just
have
a
lot
of
implications
individually,
but
they
were
all
from
the
past
month
except
for
one.
A
So
this
is
just
one
month
of
headlines
with
regard
to
crypto
mining
and
I
think
that
really
stresses
why
sustainability
is
so
extremely
important
in
web
3.
and
before
I
talk
about
how
do
we
solve
it?
I
want
to
address
just
the
magnitude
of
the
problem
and
why
do
we
keep
seeing
these
headlines?
Well,
that's
because
we're
talking
about
pretty
significant
numbers-
and
I
already
mentioned
you-
can
get
the
numbers
on
bitcoin
from
two
different
sources.
You
can
get
them
from
my
own
website.
A
You
can
get
them
from
the
cambridge
website
and
those
are
just
the
live
sources.
There
are
smaller
live
sources.
There
are
plenty
of
research
papers
also
doing
estimates,
but
in
any
case
they
will
all
get
you
to
more
or
less
the
same
range,
and
that
range
right
now
is
at
least
for
cambridge
and
my
own
data
source
81
to
120
terawatt
hours
of
electrical
energy,
that's
being
consumed
by
the
bitcoin
network
on
an
annual
basis,
which
is
more
than
half
of
what
all
data
centers
in
the
world
combined
are
consuming.
A
That's
just
talking
about
bitcoin
by
the
way,
so
you
have
to
realize
that
right
now,
ethereum,
the
second
largest
crypto
assets
still
running
on
proof
of
work.
So
if
you
were
to
include
that
you
have
to
add
50
on
top
of
these
energy
numbers.
A
A
Well,
in
order
to
figure
that
out,
you
need
to
know
where
these
miners
are
located
and
actually
it's
cambridge
that
primarily
tries
to
provide
us
with
an
estimate
of
where
we
can
find
these
miners
on
which
grid
we
can
find
these
miners
and
the
result
of
that
is
being
shown
on
the
screen.
This
is
the
cambridge
mining
map.
They
collect
information
from
various
mining
pools
and
they
use
that
information
to
extract
ip
addresses
and
based
on
the
ip
addresses
that
they
find.
A
A
But
then
they
moved
to
the
north
of
china
using
coal
during
the
winter
time,
but
nevertheless
that
gave
them
on
average
a
share
of
40
of
renewable
energy,
whereas
that
got
cut
after
china
banned
cryptocurrency
mining
during
the
spring
of
last
year
and
of
course,
there's
also
bad
news
in
terms
of
carbon
intensity
of
mining
have
more
fossil
fuels.
Carbon
intensity
goes
up
as
well.
A
I
have
a
little
bit
of
a
breakdown
per
country
which
one
is
contributing
the
most
to
carbon
emissions.
Actually,
kazakhstan
is
by
far
on
top
here,
which
is
because
the
kazakhstan
grid
is
well
primarily
being
fed
by
hardcore,
even
worse,
they're,
very
inefficient
at
processing
that
so
the
carbon
intensity
of
that
is
extremely
high.
So,
even
though
they're
not
representing
a
majority
of
the
hash
rate
in
the
network,
they
are
representing
a
majority
of
the
carbon
emissions.
A
I
have
to
state
that
this
is
the
situation
of
the
bitcoin
network
as
of
august
last
year.
It
still
represents
the
situation
in
january
of
this
year,
because
cambridge
did
update
their
mining
map
the
one
I
just
showed
kind
of
closely
aligns
with
this
map,
so
the
situation
is
probably
more
or
less
the
same,
but
we
don't
know
how
this
has
evolved
from
january.
Up
to
now
we're
waiting
for
the
next
update
to
figure
that
out.
A
It
could
be
the
case
that
a
lot
of
these
miners
have
migrated
away
from
kazakhstan,
because
kazakhstan
has
actually
been
well
using
temporary
bans,
at
least
to
try
and
reduce
mining
activities
in
their
borders.
A
We'll
have
to
see
about
that,
but
in
any
case,
if
this
is
the
situation
and
given
the
energy
estimates
of
this
network,
we
would
have
to
conclude
that,
at
the
very
least,
the
carbon
emissions
related
to
the
bitcoin
network
are
going
to
exceed
our
total
global
carbon
reductions
from
deploying
electric
vehicles
around
the
world.
So
that's
a
pretty
significant
amount
of
carbon
emissions
and
that's
using
grid
averages.
A
We
could
even
find
a
higher
number
if
we
were
to
account
for
the
fact
that,
if
you
add
demand
on
a
grid,
what's
going
to
be
supplying
that
additional
demand
is
only
rarely
renewable
energy.
In
fact,
in
most
cases,
because
we
are
in
general
trying
to
transition
to
a
greener
world,
our
renewables
are
already
running
as
much
as
possible
and
any
additional
demand
needs
to
be
supplied
by
fossil
fuel-based
power
sources.
It's
much
harder
to
estimate
the
exact
impact,
but
the
number,
if
you
were
to
account
for
that,
would
probably
end
up
being
even
higher.
A
When
you
start
trying
to
figure
out
what
is
the
karma
footprint
of
a
bitcoin
transaction,
knowing
that
the
bitcoin
network
is
ultimately
only
handling
is
very
small
amount
of
volume,
100
million
transactions
per
year,
which
is
in
the
world
of
digital
finance,
it's
it's
completely
negligible.
Traditional
finance
is
handling
over
700
billion
digital
payments
every
year.
A
This
is
what
gives
a
single
transaction
really
extreme
footprint,
and
I
listed
some
of
those
footprints
and
obviously
the
most
relevant
one
is
going
to
be
the
ultimate
carbon
footprint
of
a
transaction,
and
what
we
see
there
is
that
that
number
can
exceed
sometimes
1
000
of
kilograms
of
carbon
dioxide
and
recently,
thanks
to
the
price
crash
and
mine,
is
shutting
down.
That
footprint
has
gone
down
as
well.
So
now
we're
talking
about
just
a
little
bit
over
800
kilograms
of
carbon
dioxide
per
bitcoin
transaction,
which
is
a
massive
number
still.
A
If
you
were
to
compare
to
anything.
Just
consider
that
if
I
were
to
take
a
flight
from
here
to
new
york,
the
carbon
footprint
of
that
flight,
at
least
my
per
passenger
contribution
would
be
still
less
than
800
kilograms
of
carbon
dioxide.
So
in
terms
of
emissions,
it
probably
pays
off
to
just
take
your
money
from
here
to
new
york
by
plane,
rather
than
sending
it
over
the
bitcoin
network.
A
And
then,
of
course,
you
have
to
consider
electronic
waste
as
well.
If
you
ultimately
have
well,
you
have
this
network,
which
is
running
on
highly
specialized
equipment.
A
That
equipment
tends
to
become
obsolete
rather
fast,
and
it's
likely
that
that
just
means
that,
ultimately,
that
results
in
you
know
you
discarding,
on
average
the
equipment
weight
of
more
than
two
iphones
per
transaction
on
average
again
and
just
in
terms
of
equipment
weight
which
adds
on
top
of
the
karma
footprint
of
a
transaction.
A
A
But
that's
not
it
now.
We
see
a
lot
of
cases
where
these
miners
are
flocking
to
the
same
locations
and
it
strains
local
grids,
sometimes
to
the
extent
where
the
grid
becomes
so
unstable
that
it
results
in
blackouts,
but
more
frequently.
The
impact
that
it's
going
to
have
on
locals
is
that
it's
going
to
increase
their
energy
bill
for
the
very
simple
fact
you
know
where
you
know
where
it's
basic
supply
and
demand.
A
If
you
take
a
big
chunk
of
your
supply
and
give
it
to
minus
the
rates
for
the
remaining
supply
are
going
to
go
up
and
worst
case,
but
that's
in
the
case
of
poorly
managed
grids.
You
can
end
up
with
blackouts
as
well
and
there's
a
lot
of
other
consequences.
Then
you
should
think
about,
like
even
noise.
Pollution
is
a
thing
in
some
locations
where
had
humming
of
these
pines
is
affecting
local
wildlife
and
other
locals
in
other
ways,
but
yeah,
that's
just
all
adding.
A
Proof
of
work
has
a
big
impact
very
closely
related
to
the
asset
value
of
those
assets
so
and
the
reason
why
we
talk
about
bitcoin
the
most
is
simply
because
bitcoin
is
the
most
valuable
profit
proof
of
work
system.
If
ethereum,
which
is
today
still
was
running
on
proof
of
work
or
they
are
earning
on
proof
of
work,
but
if
they
were
more
valuable
than
bitcoin,
they
would
have
the
largest
impact
on
the
environment.
A
So
one
solution
to
this
problem
is
change.
The
mining
algorithm
actually
get
rid
of
it,
which
is
something
that
you
should
never
say
in
in
the
bitcoin
community.
But
it's
something
that
the
ethereum
community
is
actively
working
on
and
they're
working
to
replace
their
proof
of
work
with
proof
of
stake,
and
if
they
succeed,
they
could
potentially
reduce
their
power
demand
by
a
factor
10
000.
And
why
is
that?
A
Well,
when
you're
mining
what's
happening
is
that
the
whole
processing
of
transactions
in
new
blocks
for
the
blockchain
is
dependent
on
very
energy
intensive
machines
that
ultimately
do
nothing
more
than
playing
a
massive
game
of
guess
the
number
in
order
to
create
the
next
block.
For
the
bitcoin
blockchain,
your
machine
needs
to
guess
a
certain
winning
number,
and
only
if
it
guesses
correctly,
it
gets
to
add
that
block
to
the
blockchain
and
adding
a
block
to
a
blockchain
is
nice,
because
then
you
get
rewarded
for
that
with
currently
6.25
bitcoins.
A
That
reward
is
available
currently
on
average,
once
every
10
minutes,
but
you
have
a
network.
That's
making
200
quintillion
guesses
every
second
of
the
day
non-stop
in
an
effort
of
trying
to
find
that
winning
number,
and
that's
obviously
where
all
the
energy
consumption
is
related
to
it's.
It's
really
that
process
of
guessing
random
numbers,
whereas
every
incorrect
guess
almost
every
single
one
of
them
is
just
immediately
discarded
in
proof
of
stake.
A
You
get
rid
of
this
process.
For
the
most
part,
you
still
keep
a
lottery,
but
what
happens
is
that
you
don't
need
any
very
powerful
equipment
to
participate.
In
fact,
what
you
need
in
proof
of
stake
is
you
need
to
acquire
coins
and
you
need
to
put
those
coins
up
as
collateral
in
this
taking
process,
and
then
the
algorithm
itself
will
randomly
select
one
of
the
stakers
to
produce
the
next
block.
A
Although
I
have
to
add
two
things
to
that,
which
is
that
measuring
the
exact
levels
of
energy
consumption,
improve
stake
systems
remains
very
tricky.
There
is
no
clear
defined
methodology
to
do
it
actually
a
lot
of
academics.
They
don't
focus
on
proof
of
stake.
They
do
proof
of
work
because
the
numbers
are
going
to
be
bigger
and
it's
easier
to
estimate,
but
proof
of
stake.
A
So
we
don't
know
exactly
how
the
energy
consumption
profile
of
proof
of
stake
will
compare
to
proof
of
work,
but
that
there
is
going
to
be
a
significant
reduction.
Is
is
definitely
certain
just
because,
like
I
said
you
don't
you're
not
dependent
on
computationally
very
power,
intensive
hardware,
very
powerful
hardware
to
participate.
A
One
other
thing
I
should
add
is
that
it's
not
just
a
matter
of
you
know
environmental
sustainability
when
you're
making
a
switch
like
that.
Obviously,
these
two
different
versions
of
software
also
have
different
implications
in
terms
of,
for
example,
how
your
security
model
looks
like
you
may
have
all
heard
that
you
know.
If
you
want
to
attack
a
blockchain
network,
you
need
to
acquire
a
majority
in
proof
of
work.
A
majority
of
the
hardware
in
the
network
majority
attacks,
one
theoretical
attack.
A
A
Is
you
know
if
I'm
going
to
cut
down
on?
Let's
say
the
amount
of
participants?
If
I'm
going
to
limit
that
you
know,
am
I
not
introducing
a
very
high
level
of
centralization
in
this
network
because
obviously,
the
less
participants,
the
more
centralized
the
network
is
going
to
be?
And
to
what
extent
do
you
still
have
the
decentralization
that
you
wanted
blockchain
for
in
the
first
place,
so
different
consideration,
but
again,
at
least
on
the
efficiency
side,
the
energy
efficiency
side?
It's
a
very
easy
one,
but
this
is
where
you
really
have
a
choice.
A
A
You
can
significantly
reduce
the
energy
requirements
of
whatever
application
you're
building
through
these
choices,
but
at
the
same
time,
it's
not
so
simple
as
just
reducing
the
energy
consumption.
You
also
have
to
contemplate
many
other
things,
such
as
scalability
and
security,
and
going
with
the
more
energy
efficient
solution
might
result
in
you
sacrificing
on
other
properties
such
as
scalability
or
maybe
increasing
scalability,
but
still
sacrificing
on
security.
A
A
I
had
no
involvement
in
that
one,
but
I
thought
it
was
a
nice
image
just
because
it
illustrates
not
just
the
difference
between
proof
of
stake
or
non
proof
of
work,
public,
blockchains
and
proof
of
work,
public
blockchains,
but
also
showcases.
What
I
just
said
having
an
enterprise
blockchain,
a
permissioned,
limited
blockchain
is
also
more
efficient
than
having
a
public
non-proof
of
work
based
blockchain,
but
again
by
limiting
the
amount
of
participants
you're
sacrificing
on
central
or
decentralization
and
meaning,
potentially
also
sacrificing
security.
A
But
I
think
the
good
news
is
if
you're
building
these
applications,
you
can
circumvent
the
energy
problems
that
have
resulted
in
the
headlines
that
you
see
for
bitcoin
and
you
can
circumvent
the
headlines
that
have,
for
example,
led
to
recently
the
wwf,
the
world
wildlife
fund
having
a
major
pr
disaster,
as
they
launched
nfts
on
top
of
the
polygon
network
and
then
later
realized
that
actually
polygon
is
very
closely
tied
to
ethereum
and
therefore
still
very
dependent
on
the
energy
intensive
network,
so
not
as
sustainable
as
people
originally
thought.
A
So
it's
a
bit
of
it's
a
bit
of
like
navigating
a
minefield.
Sometimes
because
you
know
finding
out
this
kind
of
stuff
is,
is
not
always
very
straightforward,
especially
not
when
hey
you
have
in
the
world
wildlife
case
the
polygon
network,
claiming
that
they
are
perfectly
sustainable
because
they're
just
running
on
proof
of
stake,
while
in
reality
they
were
closely
tied
and
still
are
closely
tied
to
the
ethereum
network,
and
they
recently
started
doing
some
carbonyl
setting
for
that
as
well.
But
that
was
a
bit
too
late,
so
yeah.
A
I
guess
this
is
the
good
news.
You
have
a
choice.
The
bad
news!
Is
it's
not
an
easy
one,
so
there
are
many
factors
to
consider
beyond
the
environmental
side
of
things
I'm
hoping
to
have
at
least
given
you
some
food
for
thought
about
that
last
thing
that
I
want
to
talk
about
is
how
I
intend
to
contribute
to
making
more
sustainable
applications,
or
at
least
cleaning
or
maybe
cleaning
up
your
existing
applications.
A
For
my
own
energy
index,
I
have
three
of
them:
the
bitcoin
energy
consumption
index,
the
ethereum
energy
consumption
index
and
the
dogecoin
energy
consumption
index,
because
they're
the
biggest
proof
of
work
networks.
A
Dogecoin
is
not
that
big,
but
at
least
relevant
enough
to
consider
and
I've
just
launched
an
api
with
some
information
that
you
can
use
to
size.
Your
environmental
footprint
when
using
these
networks.
So
what
you
can
retrieve
is
the
energy
consumption
and
the
carbon
footprint
of
a
certain
network
on
a
certain
date,
and
you
can
retrieve
certain
base
levels
of
or
certain
base
units
for,
the
environmental
footprint
being
in,
for
example,
in
the
ethereum
network.
A
What
I
previously
showed
at
the
very
beginning
was
the
carbon
footprint
of
a
transaction
on
average,
but
in
reality,
transactions
can
represent
transfers
to
either
one
person
or
many
different
persons.
And
if
you
weigh
that
by
the
number
of
outputs,
you
might
be
able
to
get
a
more
realistic
picture
of
your
specific
transaction.