4 ms·

I am really curious about the points you make in your post. > This Nature article was debunked by other researchers. Who are these other researcher? Care to l

I am really curious about the points you make in your post. > This Nature article was debunked by other researchers. Who are these other researcher? Care to link to their research on this? > when in fact 60-70% of the mining power comes from a single row in this table: Antminer S9 How do we know that? > It is not unrealistic to imagine the proportion of CO2 per kWh could be in a century 20% of what it is today. Again, how do we know that?

davidgerard 8y ago
> Who are these other researcher? Care to link to their research on this? When a bitcoiner says something is "debunked", what they mean is that someone wrote a post on Medium. In this case, it's an investment banker who put some money into electricity companies before he put money into Bitcoin: https://hackernoon.com/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7 https://hackernoon.com/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-... Digiconomist's response: "Verify, don't trust" - he shows his working. https://digiconomist.net/verify-dont-trust/ https://digiconomist.net/verify-dont-trust/
mrb 8y ago
"Who are these other researcher? Care to link to their research on this?" It takes months to write, peer-review, and publish research papers, so given that this Nature Climate Change article is quite recent at the moment there exists absolutely zero peer-reviewed studies or counterstudies following up on it. However here are some researchers who have criticized it in their own informal analysis or press interviews: see links in https://is.gd/ksyKyv https://is.gd/ksyKyv — shortened URL for https://thinkprogress-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thinkprogress.org/experts-debunk-dangerous-and-misleading-study-hyping-bitcoin-energy-use-8f8744672611/amp/?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQICAEoATgAWAE%3D#origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&prerenderSize=1&visibilityState=visible&paddingTop=54&p2r=0&horizontalScrolling=0&csi=1&aoh=15408320314945&viewerUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Famp%2Fs%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fexperts-debunk-dangerous-and-misleading-study-hyping-bitcoin-energy-use-8f8744672611%2Famp%2F&history=1&storage=1&cid=1&cap=swipe%2CnavigateTo%2Ccid%2Cfragment%2CreplaceUrl https://thinkprogress-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thinkprogre... The researchers in question are: Dr. Jon Koomey, who was a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) scientist for more than two decades. Professor Eric Masanet, who leads the Energy and Resource Systems Analysis Lab at Northwestern University. Arman Shehabi, research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. And myself who has criticized it here on HN (my work's been cited in Nature Sustainability and the NYT: http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/ so I guess this makes me a researcher now) "How do we know that?" It's common knowledge to anyone in the industry that the Antminer S9 is by far the most popular Bitcoin mining machine. For some official reports on that, see market research reports and IPO filings from multiple mining hardware manufacturers. For example this has been neatly researched and presented by the team lead by Christian Stoll in https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 Read their Supplementary Data, tab "3.4 IPO filing analysis" "Again, how do we know that?" As I said elsewhere in this thread, according to https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 CO2 emissions per kWh have already decreased -25% over 11 years. Therefore -80% in 100 years seems easily achievable (the trend only has to continue for 60 years, then there can be 40 years of technological stagnation.) In fact we don't even need any technological breakthrough to achieve -80%. France already emits 90% less CO2 per kWh than the average country, thanks to nuclear power.
- thisisit 8y ago
  > It takes months to write, peer-review, and publish research papers So, there are no peer-reviewed, published research on this? Good to know. > It's common knowledge to anyone in the industry that the Antminer S9 is by far the most popular Bitcoin mining machine. Most popular can mean 30% or even 70% of hash rate. How do we know it is 60-70% as you claim? > As I said elsewhere in this thread, according to https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 CO2 emissions per kWh have already decreased -25% over 11 years. Therefore -80% in 100 years seems easily achievable (the trend only has to continue for 60 years, then there can be 40 years of technological stagnation.) To actually do a comparison, what exactly was the efficiency achieved in last 100 years? Because it looks like you are drawing the same line assumption which the paper does regarding transaction fees and power growth. > In fact we don't even need any technological breakthrough to achieve -80%. France already emits 90% less CO2 per kWh than the average country, thanks to nuclear power. And how much of the hash rate does France generate? Or how much of China's energy in the future is going to come from nuclear power (assuming they remain the country with largest hashrate).
  - mrb 8y ago
    "So, there are no peer-reviewed, published research on this?" They are coming. At least one counter-study should imminently be published (I am one of the reviewers.) I am sure more are coming. Patience :) "How do we know it is 60-70% as you claim?" As I already said: this has been neatly researched and presented by the team lead by Christian Stoll in https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 Read their Supplementary Data, tab "3.4 IPO filing analysis" This dominance of the S9 is actually a point where all market researchers unanimously agree on. I am surprised you seem to think it's a contentious point. "Because it looks like you are drawing the same line assumption which the paper does regarding transaction fees and power growth" Not the same line. The researchers assumed tx fees represent as of today 100% of mining revenues when it's really 2% and they extrapolate from here (gross overestimation). Whereas I'm assuming the current CO₂/kWh trend slows down (underestimation). "And how much of the hash rate does France generate? Or how much of China's energy in the future is going to come from nuclear power (assuming they remain the country with largest hashrate)." My point was that all we need is for present-day nuclear technology to be adopted by a good proportion of electricity generators over the next 100 years, and this would easily reduce CO2 emissions per kWh by 80%. You ask a lot of "how do we know that", but the same question applies to your position: "How do we know there will be zero CO2/kWh improvements over the next 100 years?" "How do we know the market share of the Antminer S9 is 1/62 = 1.6% (because there are 62 rows in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/Randi_TableS1.csv https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/...)?" Neither you nor these Nature Climate Change researchers provide any justification, whereas I do.

davidgerard 8y ago

> Who are these other researcher? Care to link to their research on this? When a bitcoiner says something is "debunked", what they mean is that someone wrote a post on Medium. In this case, it's an investment banker who put some money into electricity companies before he put money into Bitcoin: https://hackernoon.com/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7 https://hackernoon.com/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-... Digiconomist's response: "Verify, don't trust" - he shows his working. https://digiconomist.net/verify-dont-trust/ https://digiconomist.net/verify-dont-trust/

mrb 8y ago

"Who are these other researcher? Care to link to their research on this?" It takes months to write, peer-review, and publish research papers, so given that this Nature Climate Change article is quite recent at the moment there exists absolutely zero peer-reviewed studies or counterstudies following up on it. However here are some researchers who have criticized it in their own informal analysis or press interviews: see links in https://is.gd/ksyKyv https://is.gd/ksyKyv — shortened URL for https://thinkprogress-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thinkprogress.org/experts-debunk-dangerous-and-misleading-study-hyping-bitcoin-energy-use-8f8744672611/amp/?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQICAEoATgAWAE%3D#origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&prerenderSize=1&visibilityState=visible&paddingTop=54&p2r=0&horizontalScrolling=0&csi=1&aoh=15408320314945&viewerUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Famp%2Fs%2Fthinkprogress.org%2Fexperts-debunk-dangerous-and-misleading-study-hyping-bitcoin-energy-use-8f8744672611%2Famp%2F&history=1&storage=1&cid=1&cap=swipe%2CnavigateTo%2Ccid%2Cfragment%2CreplaceUrl https://thinkprogress-org.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/thinkprogre... The researchers in question are: Dr. Jon Koomey, who was a Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) scientist for more than two decades. Professor Eric Masanet, who leads the Energy and Resource Systems Analysis Lab at Northwestern University. Arman Shehabi, research scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. And myself who has criticized it here on HN (my work's been cited in Nature Sustainability and the NYT: http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/ so I guess this makes me a researcher now) "How do we know that?" It's common knowledge to anyone in the industry that the Antminer S9 is by far the most popular Bitcoin mining machine. For some official reports on that, see market research reports and IPO filings from multiple mining hardware manufacturers. For example this has been neatly researched and presented by the team lead by Christian Stoll in https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 Read their Supplementary Data, tab "3.4 IPO filing analysis" "Again, how do we know that?" As I said elsewhere in this thread, according to https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 CO2 emissions per kWh have already decreased -25% over 11 years. Therefore -80% in 100 years seems easily achievable (the trend only has to continue for 60 years, then there can be 40 years of technological stagnation.) In fact we don't even need any technological breakthrough to achieve -80%. France already emits 90% less CO2 per kWh than the average country, thanks to nuclear power.

thisisit 8y ago
> It takes months to write, peer-review, and publish research papers So, there are no peer-reviewed, published research on this? Good to know. > It's common knowledge to anyone in the industry that the Antminer S9 is by far the most popular Bitcoin mining machine. Most popular can mean 30% or even 70% of hash rate. How do we know it is 60-70% as you claim? > As I said elsewhere in this thread, according to https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 CO2 emissions per kWh have already decreased -25% over 11 years. Therefore -80% in 100 years seems easily achievable (the trend only has to continue for 60 years, then there can be 40 years of technological stagnation.) To actually do a comparison, what exactly was the efficiency achieved in last 100 years? Because it looks like you are drawing the same line assumption which the paper does regarding transaction fees and power growth. > In fact we don't even need any technological breakthrough to achieve -80%. France already emits 90% less CO2 per kWh than the average country, thanks to nuclear power. And how much of the hash rate does France generate? Or how much of China's energy in the future is going to come from nuclear power (assuming they remain the country with largest hashrate).
- mrb 8y ago
  "So, there are no peer-reviewed, published research on this?" They are coming. At least one counter-study should imminently be published (I am one of the reviewers.) I am sure more are coming. Patience :) "How do we know it is 60-70% as you claim?" As I already said: this has been neatly researched and presented by the team lead by Christian Stoll in https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 Read their Supplementary Data, tab "3.4 IPO filing analysis" This dominance of the S9 is actually a point where all market researchers unanimously agree on. I am surprised you seem to think it's a contentious point. "Because it looks like you are drawing the same line assumption which the paper does regarding transaction fees and power growth" Not the same line. The researchers assumed tx fees represent as of today 100% of mining revenues when it's really 2% and they extrapolate from here (gross overestimation). Whereas I'm assuming the current CO₂/kWh trend slows down (underestimation). "And how much of the hash rate does France generate? Or how much of China's energy in the future is going to come from nuclear power (assuming they remain the country with largest hashrate)." My point was that all we need is for present-day nuclear technology to be adopted by a good proportion of electricity generators over the next 100 years, and this would easily reduce CO2 emissions per kWh by 80%. You ask a lot of "how do we know that", but the same question applies to your position: "How do we know there will be zero CO2/kWh improvements over the next 100 years?" "How do we know the market share of the Antminer S9 is 1/62 = 1.6% (because there are 62 rows in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/Randi_TableS1.csv https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/...)?" Neither you nor these Nature Climate Change researchers provide any justification, whereas I do.