3 ms·

> 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 thousand

> 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.

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.