4 ms·

Does that justify wasting enough electricity to power Dallas, Texas in the mean time?

by iaw 9y ago

TekMol 9y ago
Obviously it generates enough value for some people that they are willing to pay for it. Watching television probably uses up even more energy. And I would argue it has a negative impact on life quality. But who am I to decide what people should value?
- iaw 9y ago
  Watching television does not use up more energy than mining bitcoin, that's the point of the linked article.
  - TekMol 9y ago
    The article states that the "electricity consumed for a single transaction" is equivalent to what 5 households use up in 5 days. Which seems to make you think that one would "use up" less energy by watching TV then by doing a Bitcoin transaction. But that is not true. Making a Bitcoin transaction uses up hardly any energy. The miners mine for the block reward. That is completely unrelated to transactions. They even mine if there are no transactions and generate empty blocks. If nobody made a Bitcoin transaction for a month, the energy consumption of that month would stay pretty much the same.
- alkonaut 9y ago
  Incandescent bulbs provided light and people were happy to use them. They were outlawed for the simple reason that the problem they solved wasn't efficient compared to other ways of solving the same problem. The same thing will happen to cars with internal combustion engines. People may value the sound of combustion engines or the warm glow of incandescent bulbs but as a society we don't care what they value since we share the effects of externalities.
jstanley 9y ago
It's not "wasted". The miners wouldn't spend the energy if they weren't getting a good return on their investment. Just because you don't like bitcoin doesn't make it a "waste" of energy, any more than mining gold is a "waste" of energy if you don't like gold.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  You're thinking of waste too narrowly. That power wasn't available for other things, so more had to be produced to cover Bitcoin and the other things, which meant more of all the negatives that come with energy production. Does Bitcoin provide something valuable enough to human civilization to account for that? Could that value have come from a more efficient source? Failing to account for externalities is how we get rapid ecosystem destruction (before even bringing in climate change). Those Bitcoins aren't innocent little bits on drives. They have a cost to the planet they're produced on and the life that inhabits it.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    If you think you can replace bitcoin with something more efficient, please do so. The millions of people who use bitcoin every day would gladly switch to a cheaper version if it was truly just as good.
    - rainbowmverse 9y ago
      I don't take it as a given that Bitcoin is a good solution to the problem those people solve with it. The best of the bad solutions is still bad, and Bitcoin isn't looking too good by its power consumption. It's okay to stop, really think about a problem, and find a good solution instead of charging ahead with a bad one oblivious to the brick wall ahead.
      - jstanley 9y ago
        What do you think is the best way to store+exchange value across borders in a way that can't be censored or reversed by any third party and doesn't require trusting or asking permission from any third party? Personally, I think the answer is bitcoin.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

Does that justify wasting enough electricity to power Dallas, Texas in the mean time?

by iaw 9y ago

Does that justify wasting enough electricity to power Dallas, Texas in the mean time?

Obviously it generates enough value for some people that they are willing to pay for it. Watching television probably uses up even more energy. And I would argue it has a negative impact on life quality. But who am I to decide what people should value?

iaw 9y ago
Watching television does not use up more energy than mining bitcoin, that's the point of the linked article.
- TekMol 9y ago
  The article states that the "electricity consumed for a single transaction" is equivalent to what 5 households use up in 5 days. Which seems to make you think that one would "use up" less energy by watching TV then by doing a Bitcoin transaction. But that is not true. Making a Bitcoin transaction uses up hardly any energy. The miners mine for the block reward. That is completely unrelated to transactions. They even mine if there are no transactions and generate empty blocks. If nobody made a Bitcoin transaction for a month, the energy consumption of that month would stay pretty much the same.
alkonaut 9y ago
Incandescent bulbs provided light and people were happy to use them. They were outlawed for the simple reason that the problem they solved wasn't efficient compared to other ways of solving the same problem. The same thing will happen to cars with internal combustion engines. People may value the sound of combustion engines or the warm glow of incandescent bulbs but as a society we don't care what they value since we share the effects of externalities.

jstanley 9y ago

It's not "wasted". The miners wouldn't spend the energy if they weren't getting a good return on their investment. Just because you don't like bitcoin doesn't make it a "waste" of energy, any more than mining gold is a "waste" of energy if you don't like gold.

rainbowmverse 9y ago
You're thinking of waste too narrowly. That power wasn't available for other things, so more had to be produced to cover Bitcoin and the other things, which meant more of all the negatives that come with energy production. Does Bitcoin provide something valuable enough to human civilization to account for that? Could that value have come from a more efficient source? Failing to account for externalities is how we get rapid ecosystem destruction (before even bringing in climate change). Those Bitcoins aren't innocent little bits on drives. They have a cost to the planet they're produced on and the life that inhabits it.
- jstanley 9y ago
  If you think you can replace bitcoin with something more efficient, please do so. The millions of people who use bitcoin every day would gladly switch to a cheaper version if it was truly just as good.
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    I don't take it as a given that Bitcoin is a good solution to the problem those people solve with it. The best of the bad solutions is still bad, and Bitcoin isn't looking too good by its power consumption. It's okay to stop, really think about a problem, and find a good solution instead of charging ahead with a bad one oblivious to the brick wall ahead.
    - jstanley 9y ago
      What do you think is the best way to store+exchange value across borders in a way that can't be censored or reversed by any third party and doesn't require trusting or asking permission from any third party? Personally, I think the answer is bitcoin.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]