4 ms·

This argument is so misguided and I’m surprised whenever it comes up how many people bite. How many megatons of CO2 are released globally every year due to peo

by erentz 7y ago

This argument is so misguided and I’m surprised whenever it comes up how many people bite. How many megatons of CO2 are released globally every year due to people setting their air con to 72 when they could just deal with it being at 76. Or heat their homes in winter to 75 when they could just put an extra layer on and heat it to 70. The point is energy is there to be used and people will choose to use it however it suits them for whatever they like within the confines of what they think is a reasonable use of their money. Bitcoin is no different. But these articles and the comments are all about attacking Bitcoin with an attitude that we should prohibit this particular use of energy. The correct thing to do is to properly price in the externalities to energy so that all uses are effected and if a use is then truly bad it will be priced out, or at worst it’ll at least pay for its environmental cost (such as setting your thermostat too high).

darkcha0s 7y ago
One thing you are missing- bitcoin doesn't solve any problem. We have currency, and the currency in its form today doesn't need to waste electricity as part of its inner-workings (I'm aware it takes energy to produce). AC and its power consumption is a necessary evil in some places to make livable conditions. Bitcoin doesn't have that fallback; I can pay for my coffee without creating CO2, just by using cash. No one here is saying we should forbid/outlaw/block bitcoin because of its CO2 emissions. People are just seeing it as another reason to not blindly buy into the hype.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  > No one here is saying we should forbid/outlaw/block bitcoin because of its CO2 emissions. I am. I'll make that case. Proof-of-work cryptocurrency should be banned for the same reason truck drivers idling diesel engines in cities should be banned: It harms the environment and produces nothing useful for society. If these crypocurrency developers are such geniuses, and cryptocurrency is really solving a critical problem, then banning PoW will spur innovation in alternative mechanisms like proof-of-stake or proof-of-luck [0] to meet those use cases with far less ecological devastation. [0] https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/249.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/249.pdf
  - hedora 7y ago
    You’re being a bit unfair. Diesel trucks solve a problem. They have much lower CO2 emissions than gas trucks of the same size would. I also think that proof of work crypto currency needs to be eliminated, at least until the economy is carbon negative and everyone has food, shelter, etc. Banning diesel? That probably should never happen, because niche use cases will need it until it isn’t a global problem anymore. For the same reason, it doesn’t make sense to ban coal fired steam engines. (99% of current use cases should go electric, to be clear).
    - ForHackernews 7y ago
      No, no, you misunderstand me: I mean just idling not moving. Sitting and running your diesel engine when not going anywhere is the analogy to bitcoin. A number of cities have prohibited or are considering prohibiting sitting in your truck or bus with the engine running when you aren't planning to drive anywhere. https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/prob_solutions/idling_prohibition.html https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/prob_... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/11/ban-cars-from-idling-near-schools-say-uk-public-health-chiefs https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/11/ban-cars...
- erentz 7y ago
  It’s a value judgement people are making about something they don’t like and justifying it with this emissions thing. Gambling isn’t useful either, what are the megatons of CO2 emitted by casinos? Movie theaters are pretty useless, how much is spent air conditioning those. I don’t like that massive data centers are processing images so people can have silly AR videos. We shouldn’t have that. Etc. We can’t (and probably shouldn’t) dictate what people do with electricity once it’s on the grid and so articles like this are just baiting peoples value judgements without contributing to solving the problem: If we don’t like that we have polluting coal and gas plants pumping CO2 into the atmosphere we should take action to fix that, not try to pick and choose how people use electricity to make ourselves feel better.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    Gambling is frequently banned because of its negative externalities. Are you sure this is the analogy you want to pick to defend bitcoin? You are correct that the ecological damage from bitcoin is only one of the things that makes it harmful. It happens to be my primary objection to proof-of-work cryptocurrency because I'm very worried about climate change, but I'm also not a huge fan of tax evasion or ransomware, either.

by erentz 7y ago

darkcha0s 7y ago

One thing you are missing- bitcoin doesn't solve any problem. We have currency, and the currency in its form today doesn't need to waste electricity as part of its inner-workings (I'm aware it takes energy to produce). AC and its power consumption is a necessary evil in some places to make livable conditions. Bitcoin doesn't have that fallback; I can pay for my coffee without creating CO2, just by using cash. No one here is saying we should forbid/outlaw/block bitcoin because of its CO2 emissions. People are just seeing it as another reason to not blindly buy into the hype.

ForHackernews 7y ago
> No one here is saying we should forbid/outlaw/block bitcoin because of its CO2 emissions. I am. I'll make that case. Proof-of-work cryptocurrency should be banned for the same reason truck drivers idling diesel engines in cities should be banned: It harms the environment and produces nothing useful for society. If these crypocurrency developers are such geniuses, and cryptocurrency is really solving a critical problem, then banning PoW will spur innovation in alternative mechanisms like proof-of-stake or proof-of-luck [0] to meet those use cases with far less ecological devastation. [0] https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/249.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/249.pdf
- hedora 7y ago
  You’re being a bit unfair. Diesel trucks solve a problem. They have much lower CO2 emissions than gas trucks of the same size would. I also think that proof of work crypto currency needs to be eliminated, at least until the economy is carbon negative and everyone has food, shelter, etc. Banning diesel? That probably should never happen, because niche use cases will need it until it isn’t a global problem anymore. For the same reason, it doesn’t make sense to ban coal fired steam engines. (99% of current use cases should go electric, to be clear).
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    No, no, you misunderstand me: I mean just idling not moving. Sitting and running your diesel engine when not going anywhere is the analogy to bitcoin. A number of cities have prohibited or are considering prohibiting sitting in your truck or bus with the engine running when you aren't planning to drive anywhere. https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/prob_solutions/idling_prohibition.html https://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/environmentinhk/air/prob_... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/11/ban-cars-from-idling-near-schools-say-uk-public-health-chiefs https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/11/ban-cars...
erentz 7y ago
It’s a value judgement people are making about something they don’t like and justifying it with this emissions thing. Gambling isn’t useful either, what are the megatons of CO2 emitted by casinos? Movie theaters are pretty useless, how much is spent air conditioning those. I don’t like that massive data centers are processing images so people can have silly AR videos. We shouldn’t have that. Etc. We can’t (and probably shouldn’t) dictate what people do with electricity once it’s on the grid and so articles like this are just baiting peoples value judgements without contributing to solving the problem: If we don’t like that we have polluting coal and gas plants pumping CO2 into the atmosphere we should take action to fix that, not try to pick and choose how people use electricity to make ourselves feel better.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  Gambling is frequently banned because of its negative externalities. Are you sure this is the analogy you want to pick to defend bitcoin? You are correct that the ecological damage from bitcoin is only one of the things that makes it harmful. It happens to be my primary objection to proof-of-work cryptocurrency because I'm very worried about climate change, but I'm also not a huge fan of tax evasion or ransomware, either.