4 ms·

The discussion about the energy consumption of bitcoin can only be discussed because we know how much energy it takes to produce one BTC. What we don’t know is

The discussion about the energy consumption of bitcoin can only be discussed because we know how much energy it takes to produce one BTC. What we don’t know is how many banks there are in the world with all the computers and mainframes they use to keep track of all the fiat money. And then of course the energy to produce a hardcopy of that money like knocking down trees and mining metals. So in my opinion we only can have a useful discussion about energy consumption of BTC when we also know the current energy consumption of the banking system. Which I think is a lot more…….

dmoy 8y ago
I'm not sure I buy this. If we know definitively that btc uses more energy than all of Switzerland, and we know that Switzerland doesn't spend >100% (or likely even >30%) of its energy on banking, and we know that Swiss banks clear more money than Bitcoin, then we have a reasonable point of comparison.
- daneyh 8y ago
  I understand what you're trying to say but this logic would only work if we knew that swiss bank operations 'based in switzerland' clear more money than bitcoin. Credit suisse/UBS main operations are in London.
  - dmoy 8y ago
    The domestic banking of a single small country is enough. You're talking about like 4m people getting paychecks every couple weeks at minimum. Paycheck deposits alone is more transactions than all of bitcoin. There is no way the numbers come out in bitcoins favor here, the scale just isn't there.
hudon 8y ago
As the article I linked to explains, 100,000 transactions on Visa uses considerably less electricity than 1 Bitcoin transaction. If we can’t find any benefit that Bitcoin brings, then there should be a cost threshold where we start applying the brakes. In other words, how much energy are we willing to spend without a beneficial use case? With Visa and banks, we already know they serve hundreds of millions of people on earth—if not billions.
- throwawaylolx 8y ago
  >. In other words, how much energy are we willing to spend without a beneficial use case? That's quite a statement. Did you mean without beneficial use cases that you personally know of? Example I posted somewhere in this thread: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/12/31/bitpesa-ceo-bitcoins-issues-are-tiny-compared-to-the-problems-with-banking-in-africa/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/12/31/bitpesa-ceo-...
  - hudon 8y ago
    The only indication that Bitcoin might be better than incumbents is this line: "According to Rossiello, it’s still the fastest and easiest way for her to pay her lawyer in San Francisco and developers in Europe." The hint at her anecdote not holding true in the general case comes right after: "While BitPesa is still happy with Bitcoin for now, Rossiello did note that it’s annoying that on-chain transactions have become much more expensive. Rossiello went as far as to say there will be a mass exodus away from Bitcoin if a countermeasure for high fees is not deployed within the next twelve months; however, she pointed to the Lightning Network as a possible solution to this issue." OK so the CEO of a Bitcoin payment company is annoyed that Bitcoin is increasingly worse than alternatives and she is hoping the Lightning Network will redeem it, otherwise there will be a "mass exodus". That's hardly a convincing case for Bitcoin being the better alternative for payments and reads more like all other blockchain things: an experiment. Experiments are good as long as we're keeping track of their costs and being honest about the results.
    - throwawaylolx 8y ago
      >That's hardly a convincing case for Bitcoin being the better alternative for payment It obviously is for the CEO who continues to use Bitcoin despite the annoyances, so I'm not really following your logical leaps, nor do I have the energy to chase you through your goalpost moving. You said there are no beneficial uses, and I provided you with one example.
      - hudon 8y ago

dmoy 8y ago

I'm not sure I buy this. If we know definitively that btc uses more energy than all of Switzerland, and we know that Switzerland doesn't spend >100% (or likely even >30%) of its energy on banking, and we know that Swiss banks clear more money than Bitcoin, then we have a reasonable point of comparison.

daneyh 8y ago
I understand what you're trying to say but this logic would only work if we knew that swiss bank operations 'based in switzerland' clear more money than bitcoin. Credit suisse/UBS main operations are in London.
- dmoy 8y ago
  The domestic banking of a single small country is enough. You're talking about like 4m people getting paychecks every couple weeks at minimum. Paycheck deposits alone is more transactions than all of bitcoin. There is no way the numbers come out in bitcoins favor here, the scale just isn't there.

hudon 8y ago

As the article I linked to explains, 100,000 transactions on Visa uses considerably less electricity than 1 Bitcoin transaction. If we can’t find any benefit that Bitcoin brings, then there should be a cost threshold where we start applying the brakes. In other words, how much energy are we willing to spend without a beneficial use case? With Visa and banks, we already know they serve hundreds of millions of people on earth—if not billions.

throwawaylolx 8y ago
>. In other words, how much energy are we willing to spend without a beneficial use case? That's quite a statement. Did you mean without beneficial use cases that you personally know of? Example I posted somewhere in this thread: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/12/31/bitpesa-ceo-bitcoins-issues-are-tiny-compared-to-the-problems-with-banking-in-africa/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2017/12/31/bitpesa-ceo-...
- hudon 8y ago
  The only indication that Bitcoin might be better than incumbents is this line: "According to Rossiello, it’s still the fastest and easiest way for her to pay her lawyer in San Francisco and developers in Europe." The hint at her anecdote not holding true in the general case comes right after: "While BitPesa is still happy with Bitcoin for now, Rossiello did note that it’s annoying that on-chain transactions have become much more expensive. Rossiello went as far as to say there will be a mass exodus away from Bitcoin if a countermeasure for high fees is not deployed within the next twelve months; however, she pointed to the Lightning Network as a possible solution to this issue." OK so the CEO of a Bitcoin payment company is annoyed that Bitcoin is increasingly worse than alternatives and she is hoping the Lightning Network will redeem it, otherwise there will be a "mass exodus". That's hardly a convincing case for Bitcoin being the better alternative for payments and reads more like all other blockchain things: an experiment. Experiments are good as long as we're keeping track of their costs and being honest about the results.
  - throwawaylolx 8y ago
    >That's hardly a convincing case for Bitcoin being the better alternative for payment It obviously is for the CEO who continues to use Bitcoin despite the annoyances, so I'm not really following your logical leaps, nor do I have the energy to chase you through your goalpost moving. You said there are no beneficial uses, and I provided you with one example.
    - hudon 8y ago