3 ms·

Have you factored in the energy costs of running the thousands of financial institutions and associated infrastructure required to maintain them? I personally d

Have you factored in the energy costs of running the thousands of financial institutions and associated infrastructure required to maintain them? I personally don't have time to run an energy audit of the entire financial industry, but I can tell you theres a lot more infrastructure required. factor in the engery required to: - construct giant buildings for financial offices - maintain financial offices - commute to and from offices - construct, deploy, and maintain ATMs - construct and maintain physical bank locations - server infrastructure how much of the energy required to build and maintain all of this infrastructure is from a renewable source? Proof of Work miners are at least incentivized to find the cheapest possible source of energy. Renewables! Almost free, unlimited energy!

andrewstuart2 9y ago
Everyone is pretty equally incentivized to migrate to the cheapest possible energy source, I would think. The problem is that the CapEx cost of migrating is nonzero, and usually prohibitive unless you have high confidence you can make it up in lower OpEx over a long period of time. I can say pretty confidently that banks and financial institutions are much more likely to stick around long enough to realize the full financial benefits of renewables than miners are. It's just too risky that you'll eat your renewable investment if bitcoin loses too much value, particularly given the recent huge swings in the market, and the added uncertainty of so many people forecasting doom. I'm not in a position to estimate the waste energy of a financial institution either, but you're right that it probably is quite large, but it's hard to say which is more wasteful.
- deevolution 9y ago
  How easy is it for a financial institution, who probably doesn't even control their own datacenter or buildings, to opt into using renewable energy sources? Seems like a big decision for an institution to make and a lot of beurocracy and political obstacles. For an individual who wishes to mine, they have a simple choice to make based on electricity prices. Is it profitable or not based on their current rate. Most miners will naturally exist where energy is cheap, renewable, and abundant. I'm making a hell of a lot of assumptions, though.
nemothekid 9y ago
>Have you factored in the energy costs of running the thousands of financial institutions and associated infrastructure required to maintain them? I don't like this argument. It's garbage. Bitcoin does not replace the functions of the entire financial system. I can't take out a loan using the blockchain. Banks do far more then act as a ledger. Bitcoin's utility today is a little more than P2P value transfer. A centralized solution - something like Transferwise - does not use as much energy as Bitcoin.
- deevolution 9y ago
  > A centralized solution - something like Transferwise - does not use as much energy as Bitcoin. Then your choice comes down to this: Use a centralized system for less energy consuming transaction but greater centralization of wealth -- or -- Use a distributed system that requires more energy but distributes wealth amongst network participants. Personally, I would choose the system that distributes wealth at the expense of additional energy cost. Ideally, I would choose the system that distribute wealth and has the least environmental impact.
  - nemothekid 9y ago
    This feels like a false choice. Why should I buy that the "decentralized system" distributes wealth at all? After all the top 1000 wallets hold 35% of bitcoin, and the top miners are factories that keep the best mining hardware to themselves. All of which compounds the fact that the participants in bitcoin were already wealthy enough from the "centralized" solution to buy into it.
    - deevolution 9y ago
      Bitcoin obviously has flaws, but Bitcoin is still doing a better job at distributing wealth than the banks are, thats for sure. Bitcoin may not be doing it efficiently or as well as it could be, but its doing it. Also... there are other cryptocurrecies with different intents and purposes. If you are unhappy with bitcoin, build an alternative. Ethereum proves that its possible. Our financial system, laws, and government are all malleable, and from the looks of it could use some serious change.
tobltobs 9y ago
You are comparing oranges and apples. But let us assume that all those thousands of financial institutions and their associated infrastructure are just there to handle transactions. Bitcoin is doing about 20 tx/s and Bitcoin mining uses as much energy as the nation of Denmark. Visa is doing about 1700 tx/s. > Renewables! Almost free, unlimited energy! Oh man, I should have been reading your last sentence a bit better. With all those cryptomaniacs my sarcasm detector is a bit confused.
- deevolution 9y ago
  > Bitcoin is doing about 20 tx/s > Visa is doing about 1700 tx/s combine the tx/s of all the cryptocurrencies out there right now and I assure you it exceeds Visa's 1700 tx/s. NOT ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO HAPPEN ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK! There are thousands of coins!
  - tobltobs 9y ago
    When I combine all tx/s of all the cryptocurrencies I need even more energy. Also Visa is only just one company, there are also Master, American Express, Paypal, SEPA transactions and a lot more. So I don't understand what you try to tell me and how screaming improves your argumentation.

andrewstuart2 9y ago

Everyone is pretty equally incentivized to migrate to the cheapest possible energy source, I would think. The problem is that the CapEx cost of migrating is nonzero, and usually prohibitive unless you have high confidence you can make it up in lower OpEx over a long period of time. I can say pretty confidently that banks and financial institutions are much more likely to stick around long enough to realize the full financial benefits of renewables than miners are. It's just too risky that you'll eat your renewable investment if bitcoin loses too much value, particularly given the recent huge swings in the market, and the added uncertainty of so many people forecasting doom. I'm not in a position to estimate the waste energy of a financial institution either, but you're right that it probably is quite large, but it's hard to say which is more wasteful.

deevolution 9y ago
How easy is it for a financial institution, who probably doesn't even control their own datacenter or buildings, to opt into using renewable energy sources? Seems like a big decision for an institution to make and a lot of beurocracy and political obstacles. For an individual who wishes to mine, they have a simple choice to make based on electricity prices. Is it profitable or not based on their current rate. Most miners will naturally exist where energy is cheap, renewable, and abundant. I'm making a hell of a lot of assumptions, though.

nemothekid 9y ago

>Have you factored in the energy costs of running the thousands of financial institutions and associated infrastructure required to maintain them? I don't like this argument. It's garbage. Bitcoin does not replace the functions of the entire financial system. I can't take out a loan using the blockchain. Banks do far more then act as a ledger. Bitcoin's utility today is a little more than P2P value transfer. A centralized solution - something like Transferwise - does not use as much energy as Bitcoin.

deevolution 9y ago
> A centralized solution - something like Transferwise - does not use as much energy as Bitcoin. Then your choice comes down to this: Use a centralized system for less energy consuming transaction but greater centralization of wealth -- or -- Use a distributed system that requires more energy but distributes wealth amongst network participants. Personally, I would choose the system that distributes wealth at the expense of additional energy cost. Ideally, I would choose the system that distribute wealth and has the least environmental impact.
- nemothekid 9y ago
  This feels like a false choice. Why should I buy that the "decentralized system" distributes wealth at all? After all the top 1000 wallets hold 35% of bitcoin, and the top miners are factories that keep the best mining hardware to themselves. All of which compounds the fact that the participants in bitcoin were already wealthy enough from the "centralized" solution to buy into it.
  - deevolution 9y ago
    Bitcoin obviously has flaws, but Bitcoin is still doing a better job at distributing wealth than the banks are, thats for sure. Bitcoin may not be doing it efficiently or as well as it could be, but its doing it. Also... there are other cryptocurrecies with different intents and purposes. If you are unhappy with bitcoin, build an alternative. Ethereum proves that its possible. Our financial system, laws, and government are all malleable, and from the looks of it could use some serious change.

tobltobs 9y ago

You are comparing oranges and apples. But let us assume that all those thousands of financial institutions and their associated infrastructure are just there to handle transactions. Bitcoin is doing about 20 tx/s and Bitcoin mining uses as much energy as the nation of Denmark. Visa is doing about 1700 tx/s. > Renewables! Almost free, unlimited energy! Oh man, I should have been reading your last sentence a bit better. With all those cryptomaniacs my sarcasm detector is a bit confused.

deevolution 9y ago
> Bitcoin is doing about 20 tx/s > Visa is doing about 1700 tx/s combine the tx/s of all the cryptocurrencies out there right now and I assure you it exceeds Visa's 1700 tx/s. NOT ALL TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO HAPPEN ON THE BITCOIN NETWORK! There are thousands of coins!
- tobltobs 9y ago
  When I combine all tx/s of all the cryptocurrencies I need even more energy. Also Visa is only just one company, there are also Master, American Express, Paypal, SEPA transactions and a lot more. So I don't understand what you try to tell me and how screaming improves your argumentation.