5 ms·

Bitcoin mines are in western China and Oregon precisely for the abundant and cheap hydro power. That's not so bad, ecologically speaking. Bitcoin is only as ec

Bitcoin mines are in western China and Oregon precisely for the abundant and cheap hydro power. That's not so bad, ecologically speaking. Bitcoin is only as ecologically harmful as the source of the electricity used to run the miners, and it's no more harmful than any other use of electricity. If the world switches over to solar and wind as baseload power, problem solved. If the world doesn't switch away from using coal, that's not Bitcoin's fault. It's not a problem Bitcoin can solve.

the8472 9y ago
If the world's economies ran on bitcoin we would need a stupendous amount of energy to keep the miners running. That energy not being spent on something else is a huge opportunity cost since many problems could be solved if there were just enough spare energy..
- bmcusick 9y ago
  > If the world's economies ran on bitcoin we would need a stupendous amount of energy to keep the miners running. You've misunderstood something about Bitcoin if you think this is true. Bitcoin miners use resources based on the logic of competing with each other for the value of the mining reward, not based on the number of transactions they process. If Bitcoin solved all its scaling problems so that everyone in the world could use Bitcoin, but mining rewards remained constant, the resources the miners expend to collect the reward wouldn't be any different from today.
  - Nursie 9y ago
    I think you're underestimating the issue with attackers, if the world ran on bitcoin, attacking it becomes much more attractive, so use must indeed use more energy. It must use enough to make attacking bitcoin very unattractive.
    - bmcusick 9y ago
      No, sorry, that's not how Bitcoin works either. If the whole world used Bitcoin and the market cap of Bitcoin was over a trillion dollars, a 51% attacker could still only double-spend its own transactions. As long a public key crypto is secure, you cannot just re-write arbitrary Bitcoin balances into your own wallet even if you had 100% of the mining power. Therefore the incentive to attack Bitcoin is only as big as your own Bitcoin holdings, not the value of the entire market cap.
      - Nursie 9y ago
        >> Therefore the incentive to attack Bitcoin is only as big as your own Bitcoin holdings, not the value of the entire market cap. That's not quite true though is it? They could certainly (for instance) block transactions and generally hold the whole thing to ransom. You're right, it doesn't have the financial incentive that you could (for instance) steal coin, but you could potentially block all transactions that don't have a considerable fee, for you, or just break stuff. Motives to do that will become more pressing the higher value the network is to nation states.
    - Shorel 9y ago
      It is already attractive enough for all the hackers in the world to try. And they do. The underlying technology is secure.
      - Nursie 9y ago
        As it grows it becomes more attractive for more powerful and richer actors, and even state actors.
- russdpale 9y ago
  There is enough spare energy! An infinite supply a few millions of miles away.
  - tigershark 9y ago
    The sun has no infinite supply of energy.
    - woah 9y ago
      Solar Bitcoin mining has already decreased the sun's brightness by ~2 lumens
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> If the world's economies ran on bitcoin we would need a stupendous amount of energy to keep the miners running. And we'd have to, to keep bad actors from doing similar. It's a terrible idea!
- Shorel 9y ago
  Bitcoin uses a fixed amount on energy correlated to the number of miners and their hash capacity. As more miners join, more power is used. But at the same time, miners could be removed, and hash capacity lowered, and the number of transactions per hour would be still the same. So: energy used: number of miners. Transaction capacity: block size. Both things are orthogonal. One number is independent of the other. Right now the protocol is being updated to increase transactions per hour, and this has little to do with the number of miners. To resume: if the world's economies ran on Bitcoin, because of some big transaction capacity increase, then the energy used would be about the same, because miners would be about the same. Energy use in Bitcoin has no correlation with number of transactions processed.
SamBam 9y ago
> and it's no more harmful than any other use of electricity That's a tautological statement. My 50,000 watt bulb that I shine inside a closed box is also "no more harmful than any other use of electricity," but the question is whether I should be using that electricity in the first place. You can argue whether the "wealth" generated is worth carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, but you can't deny that more carbon dioxide has been released because of BitCoin. Back to my lightbulb in a box: "If the world switches over to solar and wind my 50,000 watt useless bulb's problem is solved. If the world doesn't switch away from using coal, that's not my fault. It's not a problem I can solve."
- nine_k 9y ago
  I'd love a fact-based comparison of bitcoin mining vs gold / nickel / aluminum production, in kWh spent per $1000 of value mined. I suspect bitcoin would look relatively favorably, especially if you factor in no space being taken to store the waste, and nearly no water consumed / contaminated.
  - danharaj 9y ago
    How about comparing it to fiat currency?
    - nine_k 9y ago
      The problem with fiat currencies is that they are not normally mined, but printed. Printing a $25 or a $100 note must be an involved process, though.
  - tigershark 9y ago
    Absolutely not, it has been posted several times in the past the comparison with the world money and bitcoin power waste was simply outrageous compared to the world monetary base. Aluminium, nichel and gold have other real uses other than minting coins.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

the8472 9y ago

If the world's economies ran on bitcoin we would need a stupendous amount of energy to keep the miners running. That energy not being spent on something else is a huge opportunity cost since many problems could be solved if there were just enough spare energy..

bmcusick 9y ago
> If the world's economies ran on bitcoin we would need a stupendous amount of energy to keep the miners running. You've misunderstood something about Bitcoin if you think this is true. Bitcoin miners use resources based on the logic of competing with each other for the value of the mining reward, not based on the number of transactions they process. If Bitcoin solved all its scaling problems so that everyone in the world could use Bitcoin, but mining rewards remained constant, the resources the miners expend to collect the reward wouldn't be any different from today.
- Nursie 9y ago
  I think you're underestimating the issue with attackers, if the world ran on bitcoin, attacking it becomes much more attractive, so use must indeed use more energy. It must use enough to make attacking bitcoin very unattractive.
  - bmcusick 9y ago
    No, sorry, that's not how Bitcoin works either. If the whole world used Bitcoin and the market cap of Bitcoin was over a trillion dollars, a 51% attacker could still only double-spend its own transactions. As long a public key crypto is secure, you cannot just re-write arbitrary Bitcoin balances into your own wallet even if you had 100% of the mining power. Therefore the incentive to attack Bitcoin is only as big as your own Bitcoin holdings, not the value of the entire market cap.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      >> Therefore the incentive to attack Bitcoin is only as big as your own Bitcoin holdings, not the value of the entire market cap. That's not quite true though is it? They could certainly (for instance) block transactions and generally hold the whole thing to ransom. You're right, it doesn't have the financial incentive that you could (for instance) steal coin, but you could potentially block all transactions that don't have a considerable fee, for you, or just break stuff. Motives to do that will become more pressing the higher value the network is to nation states.
  - Shorel 9y ago
    It is already attractive enough for all the hackers in the world to try. And they do. The underlying technology is secure.
    - Nursie 9y ago
      As it grows it becomes more attractive for more powerful and richer actors, and even state actors.
russdpale 9y ago
There is enough spare energy! An infinite supply a few millions of miles away.
- tigershark 9y ago
  The sun has no infinite supply of energy.
  - woah 9y ago
    Solar Bitcoin mining has already decreased the sun's brightness by ~2 lumens
Nursie 9y ago
>> If the world's economies ran on bitcoin we would need a stupendous amount of energy to keep the miners running. And we'd have to, to keep bad actors from doing similar. It's a terrible idea!
Shorel 9y ago
Bitcoin uses a fixed amount on energy correlated to the number of miners and their hash capacity. As more miners join, more power is used. But at the same time, miners could be removed, and hash capacity lowered, and the number of transactions per hour would be still the same. So: energy used: number of miners. Transaction capacity: block size. Both things are orthogonal. One number is independent of the other. Right now the protocol is being updated to increase transactions per hour, and this has little to do with the number of miners. To resume: if the world's economies ran on Bitcoin, because of some big transaction capacity increase, then the energy used would be about the same, because miners would be about the same. Energy use in Bitcoin has no correlation with number of transactions processed.

SamBam 9y ago

> and it's no more harmful than any other use of electricity That's a tautological statement. My 50,000 watt bulb that I shine inside a closed box is also "no more harmful than any other use of electricity," but the question is whether I should be using that electricity in the first place. You can argue whether the "wealth" generated is worth carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, but you can't deny that more carbon dioxide has been released because of BitCoin. Back to my lightbulb in a box: "If the world switches over to solar and wind my 50,000 watt useless bulb's problem is solved. If the world doesn't switch away from using coal, that's not my fault. It's not a problem I can solve."

nine_k 9y ago
I'd love a fact-based comparison of bitcoin mining vs gold / nickel / aluminum production, in kWh spent per $1000 of value mined. I suspect bitcoin would look relatively favorably, especially if you factor in no space being taken to store the waste, and nearly no water consumed / contaminated.
- danharaj 9y ago
  How about comparing it to fiat currency?
  - nine_k 9y ago
    The problem with fiat currencies is that they are not normally mined, but printed. Printing a $25 or a $100 note must be an involved process, though.
- tigershark 9y ago
  Absolutely not, it has been posted several times in the past the comparison with the world money and bitcoin power waste was simply outrageous compared to the world monetary base. Aluminium, nichel and gold have other real uses other than minting coins.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]