5 ms·

We’re cobstantly dealing with environmental issues and global warming yet burn incredible amounts of energy and carbon compared to the value this gives us. It w

We’re cobstantly dealing with environmental issues and global warming yet burn incredible amounts of energy and carbon compared to the value this gives us. It would probably be more environmentally friendly to not use crypto currencies then to stop using all the electricity you do each day...

lykr0n 8y ago
Just goes to show how short sighted some people can be. Make money now, or give up that chance so future me or my possible future kids might have a slightly better world to live in. Now multiply that by a lot and- it's hard.
- emasirik 8y ago
  To many people, the world in which they have more money is probably the "better" world to live in, even if that world as a whole is less healthy.
- bordercases 8y ago
  You assume that the people that use cryptocurrencies also tend to be the people that want kids.
  - lykr0n 8y ago
    I mined NiceHash for a bit. Made a couple of grand doing it (I also pay for 100% wind power), but I didn't really consider the impact it would have. I saw the $10 to $15 a day for little to no work and took it.
agumonkey 8y ago
I feel as if the digital world is half drug and that cutting off will lead to a weird period of time until we can enjoy non electronics based good times. Still it may feel weird that such modern and sophisticated tech led to more problems than bonuses.
dnautics 8y ago
If we're going that way how about not having an economic system that predicates social stability on growth? The very essence of how our society is structured is antithetical to environmental stewardship, forget a few people playing around on computers.
- NickM 8y ago
  Growth in the economy is not necessarily predicated on growth in consumption of natural resources. Those two things tend to be correlated in modern society, but they're not inextricably linked; we don't necessarily have to give up on the idea of economic growth in order to preserve the environment.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Definitely. A few years back Jesse Ausubel gave a great talk in SF on this: http://blog.longnow.org/02015/02/06/jesse-ausubel-seminar-media/ http://blog.longnow.org/02015/02/06/jesse-ausubel-seminar-me... A core point was that economic growth has now decoupled from many resources. Computers are an obvious aid here; look at how much time we spend in front of one screen or another. My laptop is hugely valuable to me, but it took something like 1g of materials per hour of use to build it, and uses way less power than the lightbulb I previously would have read a book by.
    - dnautics 8y ago
      I'm sympathetic to the idea that technology decreases the per unit cost of productivity output, but the whole point of stimulating economic growth (via factors like inflation) doesn't work if the stimulus doesn't outpace the improvement in efficiency. Technology is fundamentally deflationary. So if you believe that inflation (and growth) is necessary for social stability, you must incentivise consumption beyond technology's capacity to improve efficiency.
      - wpietri 8y ago
        I think we're talking about two different things: economic value and the price of currency. I agree that you don't want currency deflation. But over decades, I don't think that has much to do with the value to users of goods. I can think of a few obvious places where they split. One is where we increase quality. A well-trained chef doesn't use significantly more resources than a bad cook, but the result is much better. There's also quantity; by 1980s prices, I have lost millions of dollars worth of data storage in my couch cushions. (Entertainment is a great example of both dimensions.) And it can be perfectly healthy for an economy to decrease hours worked for the same or better result, as in Germany: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/12/28/why-do-some-countries-work-longer-hours-than-others https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/12/28/why-do-s... So sure, we want currency stability, and we don't want recessions. But I don't think we face a Midas Plague [1] scenario. [1] https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_1954_04#page/n7/mode/2up https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_195...
wmf 8y ago
incredible amounts of energy compared to the value this gives us Note that the value of ETH is higher than the value of the energy needed to mine it; that's why people mine. So is your complaint really about mispricing of energy (externalities) or about other people having different values than you?
- NickM 8y ago
  "other people having different values than you" makes it sound like the value of ETH is purely a matter of personal opinion. It is, however, possible to fundamentally misprice an asset. I think OP is arguing that the ultimate real-world utility of ETH is not accurately reflected by its price.
- wpietri 8y ago
  Well, the price of ETH is higher than the price of the energy needed to mine it. The energy consumed has demonstrable value, but that's yet not true for ETH. As many people have said here, it's experimental. And of course, there's a fair bit of financial speculation going on. But as far as I know, it's generating no significant value on its own.
  - tudorconstantin 8y ago
    What does it even mean "demonstrable value"? If a person is willing to spend money (for energy, or for buying crypto on an exchange), we can say crypto has "demonstrable value" for that person, no matter what they want to do with that crypto.
    - softawre 8y ago
      Does it have value to society? That is the question. Of course it has value to people if they are willing to pay for it.
      - wpietri 8y ago
        I think something only has value to people if they purchase it repeatedly and end up satisfied with the outcome over the relevant time scale. People pay for speeding tickets, but nobody's very excited about them. You can ask many ex-smokers (and any emphysema patient) about the value of cigarettes. And as a kid I had to learn a lesson about ordering stuff advertised in comic books; I was willing to pay, but often didn't receive value.
OliverJones 8y ago
Yes. My electric grid provider buys power from Hydro Québec. I'm happy they're using a differential rate tariff for crytpo farms. Maybe it will slow the escalation in my bills, which outrun my attempts to conserve electricity. That being said, crypto farms are an almost ideal workload for a smart grid, as long as they can shut off when other customers draw peak loads. They are a predictable base load, drawing power all the time. A grid with a smaller difference between peak design load and base load has a better return on capital. That means a grid charging more to miners than other customers acts against its own narrow self-interest. But, grids do it anyway. My local grid pays to retrofit city street lights (another nice base load) from sodium vapor to LEDs to save power, for example. If we (collectively) embrace crypto, we must also embrace nuclear power because it's great for base load and emits no carbon. Is that a bargain worth making?

lykr0n 8y ago

Just goes to show how short sighted some people can be. Make money now, or give up that chance so future me or my possible future kids might have a slightly better world to live in. Now multiply that by a lot and- it's hard.

emasirik 8y ago
To many people, the world in which they have more money is probably the "better" world to live in, even if that world as a whole is less healthy.
bordercases 8y ago
You assume that the people that use cryptocurrencies also tend to be the people that want kids.
- lykr0n 8y ago
  I mined NiceHash for a bit. Made a couple of grand doing it (I also pay for 100% wind power), but I didn't really consider the impact it would have. I saw the $10 to $15 a day for little to no work and took it.

agumonkey 8y ago

I feel as if the digital world is half drug and that cutting off will lead to a weird period of time until we can enjoy non electronics based good times. Still it may feel weird that such modern and sophisticated tech led to more problems than bonuses.

dnautics 8y ago

If we're going that way how about not having an economic system that predicates social stability on growth? The very essence of how our society is structured is antithetical to environmental stewardship, forget a few people playing around on computers.

NickM 8y ago
Growth in the economy is not necessarily predicated on growth in consumption of natural resources. Those two things tend to be correlated in modern society, but they're not inextricably linked; we don't necessarily have to give up on the idea of economic growth in order to preserve the environment.
- wpietri 8y ago
  Definitely. A few years back Jesse Ausubel gave a great talk in SF on this: http://blog.longnow.org/02015/02/06/jesse-ausubel-seminar-media/ http://blog.longnow.org/02015/02/06/jesse-ausubel-seminar-me... A core point was that economic growth has now decoupled from many resources. Computers are an obvious aid here; look at how much time we spend in front of one screen or another. My laptop is hugely valuable to me, but it took something like 1g of materials per hour of use to build it, and uses way less power than the lightbulb I previously would have read a book by.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    I'm sympathetic to the idea that technology decreases the per unit cost of productivity output, but the whole point of stimulating economic growth (via factors like inflation) doesn't work if the stimulus doesn't outpace the improvement in efficiency. Technology is fundamentally deflationary. So if you believe that inflation (and growth) is necessary for social stability, you must incentivise consumption beyond technology's capacity to improve efficiency.
    - wpietri 8y ago
      I think we're talking about two different things: economic value and the price of currency. I agree that you don't want currency deflation. But over decades, I don't think that has much to do with the value to users of goods. I can think of a few obvious places where they split. One is where we increase quality. A well-trained chef doesn't use significantly more resources than a bad cook, but the result is much better. There's also quantity; by 1980s prices, I have lost millions of dollars worth of data storage in my couch cushions. (Entertainment is a great example of both dimensions.) And it can be perfectly healthy for an economy to decrease hours worked for the same or better result, as in Germany: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/12/28/why-do-some-countries-work-longer-hours-than-others https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/12/28/why-do-s... So sure, we want currency stability, and we don't want recessions. But I don't think we face a Midas Plague [1] scenario. [1] https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_1954_04#page/n7/mode/2up https://archive.org/stream/galaxymagazine-1954-04/Galaxy_195...

wmf 8y ago

incredible amounts of energy compared to the value this gives us Note that the value of ETH is higher than the value of the energy needed to mine it; that's why people mine. So is your complaint really about mispricing of energy (externalities) or about other people having different values than you?

NickM 8y ago
"other people having different values than you" makes it sound like the value of ETH is purely a matter of personal opinion. It is, however, possible to fundamentally misprice an asset. I think OP is arguing that the ultimate real-world utility of ETH is not accurately reflected by its price.
wpietri 8y ago
Well, the price of ETH is higher than the price of the energy needed to mine it. The energy consumed has demonstrable value, but that's yet not true for ETH. As many people have said here, it's experimental. And of course, there's a fair bit of financial speculation going on. But as far as I know, it's generating no significant value on its own.
- tudorconstantin 8y ago
  What does it even mean "demonstrable value"? If a person is willing to spend money (for energy, or for buying crypto on an exchange), we can say crypto has "demonstrable value" for that person, no matter what they want to do with that crypto.
  - softawre 8y ago
    Does it have value to society? That is the question. Of course it has value to people if they are willing to pay for it.
    - wpietri 8y ago
      I think something only has value to people if they purchase it repeatedly and end up satisfied with the outcome over the relevant time scale. People pay for speeding tickets, but nobody's very excited about them. You can ask many ex-smokers (and any emphysema patient) about the value of cigarettes. And as a kid I had to learn a lesson about ordering stuff advertised in comic books; I was willing to pay, but often didn't receive value.

OliverJones 8y ago

Yes. My electric grid provider buys power from Hydro Québec. I'm happy they're using a differential rate tariff for crytpo farms. Maybe it will slow the escalation in my bills, which outrun my attempts to conserve electricity. That being said, crypto farms are an almost ideal workload for a smart grid, as long as they can shut off when other customers draw peak loads. They are a predictable base load, drawing power all the time. A grid with a smaller difference between peak design load and base load has a better return on capital. That means a grid charging more to miners than other customers acts against its own narrow self-interest. But, grids do it anyway. My local grid pays to retrofit city street lights (another nice base load) from sodium vapor to LEDs to save power, for example. If we (collectively) embrace crypto, we must also embrace nuclear power because it's great for base load and emits no carbon. Is that a bargain worth making?