7 ms·

I understand the argument regarding power consumption. However, if we're going to green wash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.o

I understand the argument regarding power consumption. However, if we're going to green wash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing) a cryptocurrency, we need to focus on more than power consumption. Given that power is getting cheaper and cleaner through solar[1, 2], this is asking people to further accumulate more waste and precious metals in the form of fixed drives. This is not eco-friendly and it's dubious to assert such. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/solar-power-to-grow-sixfold-as-sun-becoming-cheapest-resource https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-22/solar-pow... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheap...

freeloop3 9y ago
Bitcoin adjusts difficulty based on how many people mine it. So cheap power doesn't reduce the cost, since it will just mean even more mining.
- tpallarino 9y ago
  Exactly, the amount of money spent on energy to mine is equal to the amount of mining revenue. Energy consumption is more closely related to price.
  - jwilliams 9y ago
    Nod - I'm coming to the conclusion that the effective store of value is the mining infrastructure. Even if it's not that explicit, they move in lock-step.
    - fe2ijwe99 9y ago
      Isn't that true of basically any computing task? Can't generate AI, websites, etc with the computing infrastructure. No software patents if no computers to create software.
      - jwilliams 9y ago
        At a really abstract level, yes. However, many computing tasks generate results that can be used near-infinitely. For example, that supercomputer that generates the weather can distribute the results to every person in the region. Whereas in cryptocurrency, that's split. The miners provide security and integrity for the chain. They also take their own very specific fee.
    - codemac 9y ago
      This is the exact same conclusion Marx came to about labor.
      - simplify 9y ago
        Could you expand on this?
        zhte415 9y ago
        The value of a product is equivalent to the amount of labour exerceted in its production.
        goldenkey 9y ago
        Except this ignores scarcity. And also ignores post-scarcity; this is the time period when robots do all work and farm all resources leaving humanity to decide the value of things divorced from rarity and labour. I will concede to Marx one aspect of his maxim; that is, scarcity is directly correlated with human effort towards a reseller market. So it still applies even if indirectly. For example, there is less labour spent trying to skim off the top of automotive mechanics work than labour spent reselling gold or limited edition Nike Airheads, etc....
        alexasmyths 9y ago
        "The value of a product is equivalent to the amount of labour exerceted in its production" This is one of the most problematic statements ever made in Econ. The 'value' of a product is different for everyone, and it's what you (or anyone else) will pay for it. The idea that 'work = value' is one of the most distortionary ideas in business, even today. Just had a discussion today about pricing a product, and it was derived from component prices. Trying to convince a room of people that 'price is not a function of cost' ... in 2017. Yes - when things are commodities, often, price is a function of cost, because competitive pricing means just a small margin above cost, which will roughly be the same for most.
        9y ago
    - alfiedotwtf 9y ago
      The problem with mining rigs is that they have high upfront cost AND a short life span. Once a faster rig comes out, NOT upgrading is effectively a tax against future profits
      - himalay 9y ago
        Sad but true
littlestymaar 9y ago
Praising solar and being concerned about accumulating wastes in the same sentence is pretty ironic imo.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Get your startup plan in order. In 20 years you can become the "Uber" of solar panel disposal. Because you can't even throw away a fluorescent bulb with most garbage collection services. Imagine the amount of toxic chemicals we will need to get rid of when these solar panels start to wear out en masse.
  - kurthr 9y ago
    Why would you throw out a paid for PV system? It's a sunk cost unless you're running out of roof space and need more power. The efficiency only drops some 20% over 20 years. Also, they can be reasonably recycled... http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/06/solar-pv-module-recycling-why-it-s-important.html http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/06/solar-p...
    - littlestymaar 9y ago
      Maybe because after some time they eventually die.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
legohead 9y ago
When there are no more bitcoins to mine, will the power consumption drastically fall? There will be fees to mine, but I can't imagine everyone is going to be fighting that much on fees, but I don't really know..
- petre 9y ago
  No. They will flee to mining other crypto currencies. If all of this turns out to be e big Ponzi scheme or becomes illegal and just about everyone loses interest in mining crypto currencies, maybe then will power consumption fall.
- johnvonneumann 9y ago
  You would hope that in 140~ years we have the power problem sorted out, if not, Bitcoin mining is probably the least of our worries.
- Grangar 9y ago
  As difficulty rises bitcoin payouts will decrease asymptotically. The idea is to let the market do its work and have the price make up for it.
- Marazan 9y ago
  The power expended on mining directly correlates to the value of bitcoins. If the amount of power expended on mining decreases to far then it becomes cost effective to attack the network. Power expended on mining must remain constant or ever increasing lest the whole thing collapse.
  - jacobush 9y ago
    This is where it gets interesting. Bitcoin miners only reward then are transaction fees. So these must go up.
xelxebar 9y ago
I don't get why PV, wind, geothermal &c get so much more love than the various nuclear fuel cycles. AFAIK nuclear so far has the smallest fatality per kWh ratio. For certain, salt reactors need a lot more research, but so do many of these other "green" energies. Are we even clear on the full environmental impact of the various "green" energies when factoring in secondary and tertiary costs? I feel like China probably has the right idea of dumping a bunch of R&D into LFTR and whatnot instead of riding the Eco Friendly TM train.
- rtpg 9y ago
  full lifecycle studies are constantly being done on all power sources, the idea of factoring in the entire process has almost always been there. Solar energy being a great solution to power generation is backed by a lot of research, as well as a good economic situation. It's not just a bandwagon.
- totalZero 9y ago
  > I don't get why PV, wind, geothermal &c get so much more love than the various nuclear fuel cycles. Perceived tail risk.
- tom_mellior 9y ago
  For many people it's fatalities, yes. For others like me, it's about not leaving nuclear waste around for many thousands of years. That is, "factoring in secondary and tertiary costs", including ones not necessarily expressed in today's dollars. The world would be all over a nuclear fuel cycle that doesn't produce waste that needs very-long-term storage.
- Marazan 9y ago
  If this was 15 years ago I'd be saying "Nuclear, hell yeah". But in the last 15 years solar prices have come way the heck down. And are going to go down even further in the coming 15 years. Everyone will get solar panels, they will be just that cheap.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Among other things, nuclear has a ridiculous cost overrun problem. We can't wait for it to be cheap, we have to deploy the working renewables now while waiting for "better" nuclear to be researched and built.
corford 9y ago
He seems to have thought about this and answers a question on it here (at about 1hr8mins in): https://www.facebook.com/BerkeleyBlockchain/videos/2006069823011271/ https://www.facebook.com/BerkeleyBlockchain/videos/200606982... His answer is a bit hand wavy though (or maybe I'm just being slow).
zby 9y ago
The real problem is that when miners are competitive they'll always add cost (in electricity, equipment and whatever) up to the level of the revenues. So if you have a block reward - it will approximate the cost of the system. There is a famous post on this subject: Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ (even though I believe that Proof of Stake can be cheaper: https://medium.com/@zby/proof-of-stake-can-be-cheaper-than-proof-of-work-da14223a965 https://medium.com/@zby/proof-of-stake-can-be-cheaper-than-p... - by reducing the block reward).
- lowglow 9y ago
  You can see Bram announce this a month ago at the local Crypto Builders Meetup[0]. He talks about it in depth. Skip to 32m: https://www.facebook.com/hackdays4all/videos/533001907045477/ https://www.facebook.com/hackdays4all/videos/533001907045477...

freeloop3 9y ago

Bitcoin adjusts difficulty based on how many people mine it. So cheap power doesn't reduce the cost, since it will just mean even more mining.

tpallarino 9y ago
Exactly, the amount of money spent on energy to mine is equal to the amount of mining revenue. Energy consumption is more closely related to price.
- jwilliams 9y ago
  Nod - I'm coming to the conclusion that the effective store of value is the mining infrastructure. Even if it's not that explicit, they move in lock-step.
  - fe2ijwe99 9y ago
    Isn't that true of basically any computing task? Can't generate AI, websites, etc with the computing infrastructure. No software patents if no computers to create software.
    - jwilliams 9y ago
      At a really abstract level, yes. However, many computing tasks generate results that can be used near-infinitely. For example, that supercomputer that generates the weather can distribute the results to every person in the region. Whereas in cryptocurrency, that's split. The miners provide security and integrity for the chain. They also take their own very specific fee.
  - codemac 9y ago
    This is the exact same conclusion Marx came to about labor.
    - simplify 9y ago
      Could you expand on this?
      - zhte415 9y ago
        The value of a product is equivalent to the amount of labour exerceted in its production.
        goldenkey 9y ago
        Except this ignores scarcity. And also ignores post-scarcity; this is the time period when robots do all work and farm all resources leaving humanity to decide the value of things divorced from rarity and labour. I will concede to Marx one aspect of his maxim; that is, scarcity is directly correlated with human effort towards a reseller market. So it still applies even if indirectly. For example, there is less labour spent trying to skim off the top of automotive mechanics work than labour spent reselling gold or limited edition Nike Airheads, etc....
        alexasmyths 9y ago
        "The value of a product is equivalent to the amount of labour exerceted in its production" This is one of the most problematic statements ever made in Econ. The 'value' of a product is different for everyone, and it's what you (or anyone else) will pay for it. The idea that 'work = value' is one of the most distortionary ideas in business, even today. Just had a discussion today about pricing a product, and it was derived from component prices. Trying to convince a room of people that 'price is not a function of cost' ... in 2017. Yes - when things are commodities, often, price is a function of cost, because competitive pricing means just a small margin above cost, which will roughly be the same for most.
        9y ago
  - alfiedotwtf 9y ago
    The problem with mining rigs is that they have high upfront cost AND a short life span. Once a faster rig comes out, NOT upgrading is effectively a tax against future profits
    - himalay 9y ago
      Sad but true

littlestymaar 9y ago

Praising solar and being concerned about accumulating wastes in the same sentence is pretty ironic imo.

jjeaff 9y ago
Get your startup plan in order. In 20 years you can become the "Uber" of solar panel disposal. Because you can't even throw away a fluorescent bulb with most garbage collection services. Imagine the amount of toxic chemicals we will need to get rid of when these solar panels start to wear out en masse.
- kurthr 9y ago
  Why would you throw out a paid for PV system? It's a sunk cost unless you're running out of roof space and need more power. The efficiency only drops some 20% over 20 years. Also, they can be reasonably recycled... http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/06/solar-pv-module-recycling-why-it-s-important.html http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/06/solar-p...
  - littlestymaar 9y ago
    Maybe because after some time they eventually die.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

legohead 9y ago

When there are no more bitcoins to mine, will the power consumption drastically fall? There will be fees to mine, but I can't imagine everyone is going to be fighting that much on fees, but I don't really know..

petre 9y ago
No. They will flee to mining other crypto currencies. If all of this turns out to be e big Ponzi scheme or becomes illegal and just about everyone loses interest in mining crypto currencies, maybe then will power consumption fall.
johnvonneumann 9y ago
You would hope that in 140~ years we have the power problem sorted out, if not, Bitcoin mining is probably the least of our worries.
Grangar 9y ago
As difficulty rises bitcoin payouts will decrease asymptotically. The idea is to let the market do its work and have the price make up for it.
Marazan 9y ago
The power expended on mining directly correlates to the value of bitcoins. If the amount of power expended on mining decreases to far then it becomes cost effective to attack the network. Power expended on mining must remain constant or ever increasing lest the whole thing collapse.
- jacobush 9y ago
  This is where it gets interesting. Bitcoin miners only reward then are transaction fees. So these must go up.

xelxebar 9y ago

I don't get why PV, wind, geothermal &c get so much more love than the various nuclear fuel cycles. AFAIK nuclear so far has the smallest fatality per kWh ratio. For certain, salt reactors need a lot more research, but so do many of these other "green" energies. Are we even clear on the full environmental impact of the various "green" energies when factoring in secondary and tertiary costs? I feel like China probably has the right idea of dumping a bunch of R&D into LFTR and whatnot instead of riding the Eco Friendly TM train.

rtpg 9y ago
full lifecycle studies are constantly being done on all power sources, the idea of factoring in the entire process has almost always been there. Solar energy being a great solution to power generation is backed by a lot of research, as well as a good economic situation. It's not just a bandwagon.
totalZero 9y ago
> I don't get why PV, wind, geothermal &c get so much more love than the various nuclear fuel cycles. Perceived tail risk.
tom_mellior 9y ago
For many people it's fatalities, yes. For others like me, it's about not leaving nuclear waste around for many thousands of years. That is, "factoring in secondary and tertiary costs", including ones not necessarily expressed in today's dollars. The world would be all over a nuclear fuel cycle that doesn't produce waste that needs very-long-term storage.
Marazan 9y ago
If this was 15 years ago I'd be saying "Nuclear, hell yeah". But in the last 15 years solar prices have come way the heck down. And are going to go down even further in the coming 15 years. Everyone will get solar panels, they will be just that cheap.
pjc50 9y ago
Among other things, nuclear has a ridiculous cost overrun problem. We can't wait for it to be cheap, we have to deploy the working renewables now while waiting for "better" nuclear to be researched and built.

corford 9y ago

He seems to have thought about this and answers a question on it here (at about 1hr8mins in): https://www.facebook.com/BerkeleyBlockchain/videos/2006069823011271/ https://www.facebook.com/BerkeleyBlockchain/videos/200606982... His answer is a bit hand wavy though (or maybe I'm just being slow).

zby 9y ago

The real problem is that when miners are competitive they'll always add cost (in electricity, equipment and whatever) up to the level of the revenues. So if you have a block reward - it will approximate the cost of the system. There is a famous post on this subject: Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/ (even though I believe that Proof of Stake can be cheaper: https://medium.com/@zby/proof-of-stake-can-be-cheaper-than-proof-of-work-da14223a965 https://medium.com/@zby/proof-of-stake-can-be-cheaper-than-p... - by reducing the block reward).

lowglow 9y ago
You can see Bram announce this a month ago at the local Crypto Builders Meetup[0]. He talks about it in depth. Skip to 32m: https://www.facebook.com/hackdays4all/videos/533001907045477/ https://www.facebook.com/hackdays4all/videos/533001907045477...