3 ms·

This argument comes up practically every day now with the same lack of comparison to existing financial systems. Bitcoin is an energy hog; so what? Lots of thin

This argument comes up practically every day now with the same lack of comparison to existing financial systems. Bitcoin is an energy hog; so what? Lots of things require enormous amounts of energy. The question should be what value are we deriving from that energy usage, and is it greater than the status quo? How much energy is expended running bank servers? How much energy is expended mining gold and keeping reserves secured?

maxerickson 9y ago
"hog" is a value judgment though. A neutral headline would just talk about bitcoin energy consumption or whatever.
cowpig 9y ago
This seems like a false dichotomy. A better question is "what value does Bitcoin provide for the energy it uses compared to similar alternatives (Ethereum, Ripple...)?"
tehlike 9y ago
If bitcoin scaled to thousands of tps, then energy would be no brainer, and justified. Or if bitcoin lived up to its promises yet. The argument I think we would probably agree on is some sort of revolution is happening, and there are consequences that will be forgotten once it ends. That i think people would agree on (setting aside if bitcoin is a revolution or a bubble). What you are saying is "traffic accidents kill people", and then saying "so what - people die naturally every day!", and that's not OK.
foepys 9y ago
Bitcoin is estimated to use about the same energy as the whole country of Denmark[1]. Denmark has over 790 million cashless transactions with "Dankort", a local debit card, per year alone[2] - excluding other payment methods. Bitcoin can handle about 2,000 transactions per block[3]. 2,000 transactions times 6 blocks per hour times 24 hours in a day times 365 days in a year equals 105,120,000 transactions per year. Congratulations, you just used the energy of the whole country of Denmark with _everything_ in it (housholds, heavy industry, etc.) to process less than a 1/7th of Denmark's cash-less transactions with a _specific_ (albeit widely used) debit card. You see, your argument is simply invalid. "Traditional" banking is more energy efficient by multiple orders of magnitude. 1: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-energy-consumption-explained/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-... 2: https://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/publications/Documents/2011/09/MON3Q_P1_2011_Payment%20Habits%20in%20Denmark.pdf https://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/publications/Documents/2011... (page 125) 3: https://blockchain.info/en/charts/n-transactions-per-block https://blockchain.info/en/charts/n-transactions-per-block
- ohhhlol 9y ago
  Compuserve was more efficient than the internet 'Dankort' isn't global
- amigoingtodie 9y ago
  How much is a Dankort worth? Can I divide a Dankort into smaller Dankort units? Can I send my friend a Dankort? Can she send a Dankort to me?
- baddox 9y ago
  There are some very huge differences between Bitcoin and Denmark’s payment system. It’s perfectly fine for you to dislike or scoff at those differences, but some people find Bitcoin’s differences extremely appealing, and it’s disingenuous to say that the payment systems are accomplishing the same thing just with different energy costs.

maxerickson 9y ago

"hog" is a value judgment though. A neutral headline would just talk about bitcoin energy consumption or whatever.

cowpig 9y ago

This seems like a false dichotomy. A better question is "what value does Bitcoin provide for the energy it uses compared to similar alternatives (Ethereum, Ripple...)?"

tehlike 9y ago

If bitcoin scaled to thousands of tps, then energy would be no brainer, and justified. Or if bitcoin lived up to its promises yet. The argument I think we would probably agree on is some sort of revolution is happening, and there are consequences that will be forgotten once it ends. That i think people would agree on (setting aside if bitcoin is a revolution or a bubble). What you are saying is "traffic accidents kill people", and then saying "so what - people die naturally every day!", and that's not OK.

foepys 9y ago

Bitcoin is estimated to use about the same energy as the whole country of Denmark[1]. Denmark has over 790 million cashless transactions with "Dankort", a local debit card, per year alone[2] - excluding other payment methods. Bitcoin can handle about 2,000 transactions per block[3]. 2,000 transactions times 6 blocks per hour times 24 hours in a day times 365 days in a year equals 105,120,000 transactions per year. Congratulations, you just used the energy of the whole country of Denmark with _everything_ in it (housholds, heavy industry, etc.) to process less than a 1/7th of Denmark's cash-less transactions with a _specific_ (albeit widely used) debit card. You see, your argument is simply invalid. "Traditional" banking is more energy efficient by multiple orders of magnitude. 1: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-energy-consumption-explained/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-... 2: https://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/publications/Documents/2011/09/MON3Q_P1_2011_Payment%20Habits%20in%20Denmark.pdf https://www.nationalbanken.dk/en/publications/Documents/2011... (page 125) 3: https://blockchain.info/en/charts/n-transactions-per-block https://blockchain.info/en/charts/n-transactions-per-block

ohhhlol 9y ago
Compuserve was more efficient than the internet 'Dankort' isn't global
amigoingtodie 9y ago
How much is a Dankort worth? Can I divide a Dankort into smaller Dankort units? Can I send my friend a Dankort? Can she send a Dankort to me?
baddox 9y ago
There are some very huge differences between Bitcoin and Denmark’s payment system. It’s perfectly fine for you to dislike or scoff at those differences, but some people find Bitcoin’s differences extremely appealing, and it’s disingenuous to say that the payment systems are accomplishing the same thing just with different energy costs.