3 ms·

> Unfortunately it's a poor store of value since it requires a constant stream of electricity to maintain. "Earth is a poor store of life because it requires a

> Unfortunately it's a poor store of value since it requires a constant stream of electricity to maintain. "Earth is a poor store of life because it requires a constant stream of light to maintain." Hm no, that doesn't work...

simias 8y ago
It doesn't work because we need life to be alive. We don't really need bitcoin for anything though. But you're right that in the very long term remaining alive on earth, or even in the universe at large is going to be a huge issue. Wasting energy mining cryptocurrencies isn't going to help. I wonder who's going to be the first person building a dyson sphere to power a BTC miner.
- blueprint 8y ago
  > We don't really need bitcoin for anything though. Why was Bitcoin invented; what problem does it solve?
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    Bitcoin doesn't solve any problems of the modern financial system. It does (re)create dozens of new problems.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
Life isn't outgrowing Earth's capacity to absorb sunlight (nor Earth's capacity to radiate heat). Earth's energy flux is good for supporting life for the next 2 billion years. Cryptocurrencies are designed to waste increasing amounts of energy that grow both with time and the popularity of the system. Right now we're not able to pull energy from Sun fast enough to power them (see all the global energy issues, fossil fuels, etc.). And even if we eventually could, cryptocurrencies would only grow to consume all available energy. And even if we could keep up with that, it's an incredibly unnecessary waste if you compare all the other uses that energy could be put to. The guarantees that cryptocurrencies give are not worth the upkeep. And that's all without discussing the other side of the coin - waste heat.
- blueprint 8y ago
  > Right now we're not able to pull energy from Sun fast enough to power them (see all the global energy issues, fossil fuels, etc.) Actually there are thousands of other things that take way more energy and pollute way more than cryptocurrency mining. In fact you can locate your miners anywhere, unlike, say, your shipping vessels. So there's an incentive to place the miners next to, say, hydrothermal plants. Why aren't you fervently arguing for the other orders-of-magnitude-larger polluters to be replaced? Lord knows we have alternatives to them too. By the way, do you know about Bitcoin's emission curve and what is going to happen to mining after bitcoins are no longer emitted? > And even if we eventually could, cryptocurrencies would only grow to consume all available energy. That's a lot of energy! Could you provide some kind of grounds for your opinion here?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    > Why aren't you fervently arguing for the other orders-of-magnitude-larger polluters to be replaced? Lord knows we have alternatives to them too. Because here I'm arguing against the trend, not just absolute magnitude. Almost every other human endeavour has incentives to reduce waste and upkeep. Cryptocurrencies require ever increasing energy use for maintaining the system. (Note that I also frequently argue against various zero-sum games in the economy, like advertising, which are yet another unnecessary waste of precious resources. I try to be consistent with that position.) > what is going to happen to mining after bitcoins are no longer emitted? Isn't it true that Bitcoin requires continuous energy expenditure through mining to maintain the integrity of the network? > That's a lot of energy! Could you provide some kind of grounds for your opinion here? I'm talking about the dream/goal scenario of cryptocurrency advocates, in which cryptocurrencies replace fiat and become the new basis for the entire global economy. And the grounds are that the system is designed in a way that you literally make money burning electricity, so as long as electricity is cheaper than payoff somewhere (or you can steal some), there's strong incentive for everyone to try and burn energy.
    - ric2b 8y ago
      > And the grounds are that the system is designed in a way that you literally make money burning electricity, so as long as electricity is cheaper than payoff somewhere (or you can steal some), there's strong incentive for everyone to try and burn energy. Which increases energy costs until that profit gets small. As long as there is a more valuable use for energy than getting a 0.1% profit mining Bitcoin, I don't see why mining would ever consume all energy, that's ridiculous.

simias 8y ago

It doesn't work because we need life to be alive. We don't really need bitcoin for anything though. But you're right that in the very long term remaining alive on earth, or even in the universe at large is going to be a huge issue. Wasting energy mining cryptocurrencies isn't going to help. I wonder who's going to be the first person building a dyson sphere to power a BTC miner.

blueprint 8y ago
> We don't really need bitcoin for anything though. Why was Bitcoin invented; what problem does it solve?
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Bitcoin doesn't solve any problems of the modern financial system. It does (re)create dozens of new problems.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

Life isn't outgrowing Earth's capacity to absorb sunlight (nor Earth's capacity to radiate heat). Earth's energy flux is good for supporting life for the next 2 billion years. Cryptocurrencies are designed to waste increasing amounts of energy that grow both with time and the popularity of the system. Right now we're not able to pull energy from Sun fast enough to power them (see all the global energy issues, fossil fuels, etc.). And even if we eventually could, cryptocurrencies would only grow to consume all available energy. And even if we could keep up with that, it's an incredibly unnecessary waste if you compare all the other uses that energy could be put to. The guarantees that cryptocurrencies give are not worth the upkeep. And that's all without discussing the other side of the coin - waste heat.

blueprint 8y ago
> Right now we're not able to pull energy from Sun fast enough to power them (see all the global energy issues, fossil fuels, etc.) Actually there are thousands of other things that take way more energy and pollute way more than cryptocurrency mining. In fact you can locate your miners anywhere, unlike, say, your shipping vessels. So there's an incentive to place the miners next to, say, hydrothermal plants. Why aren't you fervently arguing for the other orders-of-magnitude-larger polluters to be replaced? Lord knows we have alternatives to them too. By the way, do you know about Bitcoin's emission curve and what is going to happen to mining after bitcoins are no longer emitted? > And even if we eventually could, cryptocurrencies would only grow to consume all available energy. That's a lot of energy! Could you provide some kind of grounds for your opinion here?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > Why aren't you fervently arguing for the other orders-of-magnitude-larger polluters to be replaced? Lord knows we have alternatives to them too. Because here I'm arguing against the trend, not just absolute magnitude. Almost every other human endeavour has incentives to reduce waste and upkeep. Cryptocurrencies require ever increasing energy use for maintaining the system. (Note that I also frequently argue against various zero-sum games in the economy, like advertising, which are yet another unnecessary waste of precious resources. I try to be consistent with that position.) > what is going to happen to mining after bitcoins are no longer emitted? Isn't it true that Bitcoin requires continuous energy expenditure through mining to maintain the integrity of the network? > That's a lot of energy! Could you provide some kind of grounds for your opinion here? I'm talking about the dream/goal scenario of cryptocurrency advocates, in which cryptocurrencies replace fiat and become the new basis for the entire global economy. And the grounds are that the system is designed in a way that you literally make money burning electricity, so as long as electricity is cheaper than payoff somewhere (or you can steal some), there's strong incentive for everyone to try and burn energy.
  - ric2b 8y ago
    > And the grounds are that the system is designed in a way that you literally make money burning electricity, so as long as electricity is cheaper than payoff somewhere (or you can steal some), there's strong incentive for everyone to try and burn energy. Which increases energy costs until that profit gets small. As long as there is a more valuable use for energy than getting a 0.1% profit mining Bitcoin, I don't see why mining would ever consume all energy, that's ridiculous.