3 ms·

I mean that's a bit of a tautology isn't it? Once we have clean energy production for everything, bitcoin will have minimal environmental impact? That's ignor

I mean that's a bit of a tautology isn't it? Once we have clean energy production for everything, bitcoin will have minimal environmental impact? That's ignoring the fact that fusion is still a very long way from commercial availability.

johnisgood 8y ago
Why is it a tautology, and why would it be ignoring the fact? I am not. I am only stating that it will be less of an issue, because well, it will be... that is, if everything turns out to be working as ITER "predicted". Isn't this correct? We are aiming for "cheaper" and "greener" electricity, some even call it "infinite electricity".
- foxrob92 8y ago
  Maybe tautology is the wrong word. I just feel like it's a bit ridiculous to downplay the environmental impacts of bitcoin mining by saying "it'll be fine when we have fusion!" because we don't have fusion today, and it's likely to be a very long time before fusion is commercially available. Also, your initial comment said: >By the way, the negative environmental impacts will be significantly reduced after ITER is ready. ITER is not a commercial reactor. Even after it's construction is completed (expected to be, what, 2025?), we still have a long way to go before you can use fusion power to mine bitcoin. Meanwhile, climate change is happening now. We need to be reducing emissions now.
  - johnisgood 8y ago
    > downplay the environmental impacts of bitcoin mining I didn't, I just said it won't be an issue when ITER is ready, which it probably will, and in our lifetime. We don't need to have it available to us, it would be enough for those miners to use it and the impact would be significantly reduced. I am not saying that it isn't a problem right now, because it is, but it won't always be the case so there is a long-term solution in the happening, which is good to know. I am not saying we shouldn't reduce emission and whatnot right now, of course we should.

johnisgood 8y ago

Why is it a tautology, and why would it be ignoring the fact? I am not. I am only stating that it will be less of an issue, because well, it will be... that is, if everything turns out to be working as ITER "predicted". Isn't this correct? We are aiming for "cheaper" and "greener" electricity, some even call it "infinite electricity".

foxrob92 8y ago
Maybe tautology is the wrong word. I just feel like it's a bit ridiculous to downplay the environmental impacts of bitcoin mining by saying "it'll be fine when we have fusion!" because we don't have fusion today, and it's likely to be a very long time before fusion is commercially available. Also, your initial comment said: >By the way, the negative environmental impacts will be significantly reduced after ITER is ready. ITER is not a commercial reactor. Even after it's construction is completed (expected to be, what, 2025?), we still have a long way to go before you can use fusion power to mine bitcoin. Meanwhile, climate change is happening now. We need to be reducing emissions now.
- johnisgood 8y ago
  > downplay the environmental impacts of bitcoin mining I didn't, I just said it won't be an issue when ITER is ready, which it probably will, and in our lifetime. We don't need to have it available to us, it would be enough for those miners to use it and the impact would be significantly reduced. I am not saying that it isn't a problem right now, because it is, but it won't always be the case so there is a long-term solution in the happening, which is good to know. I am not saying we shouldn't reduce emission and whatnot right now, of course we should.