6 ms·

If the only way to have a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency is to waste an inordinate amount of energy and increase our global warming and pollu

If the only way to have a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency is to waste an inordinate amount of energy and increase our global warming and pollution problems, then we'll have to do without that kind of digital currency. It's a matter of priorities.

mrb 7y ago
"inordinate amount of energy" It's comparable to what a single hydro dam like the Three Gorges Dam can produce. Don't fall prey to the scary comparisons BECI employs to mislead its readers. Global warming is critical, but there are other energy wasters much, much bigger than Bitcoin miners. Besides, as it's been said many times, miners tend to use renewables since they have become cheaper than fossil fuel power plants. A recent paper by Stoll et al. estimated CO2 emissions as being comparable to what a single city like Las Vegas emits: https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1139439068570193921 https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/113943906857019392...
- danmaz74 7y ago
  Right now the share of the world economy running on Bitcoin is negligible, yet its energy consumption is relevant. If that share became consistent, the price of Bitcoin would increase by many orders of magnitude, and mining bitcoin would become more and more competitive in relation to other uses of energy, and would increase in tune - that's why I say inordinate. PoW is just unsustainable by design.
  - trickstra 7y ago
    Bitcoin's energy consumption is also by design self balancing - increase the price of electricity, less electricity will be used. With the same benefits for the network.
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      Not really, it's self-balancing with respect to the efficiency of the technology around it. As tech gets better, Bitcoin gets worse to compensate.
- _Microft 7y ago
  > It's comparable to what a single hydro dam like the Three Gorges Dam can produce. Which happens to be one of, if not the largest hydroelectric dam in the world. > Besides, as it's been said many times, miners tend to use renewables since they have become cheaper than fossil fuel power plants. Which means that this renewable energy is no longer available for other uses.
trickstra 7y ago
It's not a "waste" if the result is a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency. And the global warming argument is a many times debunked hoax - if anyone has better use of that electricity, they are welcome to use it, which will make mining cryptocurrency unprofitable. Except in the other cases, the benefits go to the single entity that owns the business, whereas with cryptocurrency every participant benefits from the stronger network. Global warming is caused by using fossil fuels to make electricity, mining crypto doesn't require fossil fuels. There are other ways to make electricity, let's focus on them.
- danmaz74 7y ago
  > if anyone has better use of that electricity, they are welcome to use it, which will make mining cryptocurrency unprofitable I'm sorry, but you got this backwards. If bitcoin becomes a relevant part of the world economy, then it HAS to use a relevant part of the world energy, because consuming energy for PoW is the only limiting factor against a 51% attack. So, either Bitcoin is irrelevant - and thus its power usage is a literal waste - or it's relevant, and then its power usage has to become relevant in terms of global warming.
  - trickstra 7y ago
    From the point of view of the miner, they have a supply of electricity at a certain price and can decide what to do with it. They might run their TV, computer, heating, industrial machinery, datacenter, or a bitcoin miner. They have to compute what profits can each of the options give them. If running bitcoin miners at that electricity cost and at that profit they can get from selling the bitcoins is more profitable than the others, then it's logical to do that. If on the other hand the price of bitcoin goes down, or the price of electricity goes up, or people start paying more for server hosting, then the decision changes. The fact that miners are now mining, means it's currently most rational to do that, given what society (users, participants) are willing to pay for the services.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      If bitcoin is the dominant currency, another option exists: 51% attack, double-spend to get free electricity. This is useful even when it makes an apparent loss by damaging trust in the currency: If you are, say, the USA president and you’re at war with Iraq, and Iraq uses bitcoin, you can outspend on energy until they surrender. Unless the whole world uses bitcoin, but then the first few nations individually face the same problem, regardless of who else actually uses bitcoin — gotta keep the USA and China happy at the same time! (The EU isn’t integrated enough to do that sort of thing yet, but is a similar sized group). Right now, 51% needs the cost of one very large power station from when you start until when you win — large nations, the sort with global ambitions, can spare a lot more. In the previous example, that’s close to all the power Iraq produces, but 5.4% of the USA’s output. Then there’s the fact that most countries like being in charge of their own currencies as the ability to create or destroy units is a useful economic lever. > The fact that miners are now mining, means it's currently most rational to do that, given what society (users, participants) are willing to pay for the services. Or it’s speculation, like so many other things before and probably yet to come.
toxik 7y ago
Said the man living one of the most privileged lives possible on this planet. Bitcoin has a very clear use to the oppressed people of the world, and for that exact reason it’s popular among criminals.
krageon 7y ago
From a position of power it is easy to do without, because you derive no security or finances from this solution. After all, the status quo is paying you just fine. Why is what you say relevant for most people, who to varying degrees definitely don't have all the things that you apparently take for granted?
- danmaz74 7y ago
  Is having food on the table and a roof on their head relevant to "most people"? Because, when we're talking about climate change, that's what is at risk for hundreds of millions of people.

mrb 7y ago

"inordinate amount of energy" It's comparable to what a single hydro dam like the Three Gorges Dam can produce. Don't fall prey to the scary comparisons BECI employs to mislead its readers. Global warming is critical, but there are other energy wasters much, much bigger than Bitcoin miners. Besides, as it's been said many times, miners tend to use renewables since they have become cheaper than fossil fuel power plants. A recent paper by Stoll et al. estimated CO2 emissions as being comparable to what a single city like Las Vegas emits: https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/1139439068570193921 https://mobile.twitter.com/zorinaq/status/113943906857019392...

danmaz74 7y ago
Right now the share of the world economy running on Bitcoin is negligible, yet its energy consumption is relevant. If that share became consistent, the price of Bitcoin would increase by many orders of magnitude, and mining bitcoin would become more and more competitive in relation to other uses of energy, and would increase in tune - that's why I say inordinate. PoW is just unsustainable by design.
- trickstra 7y ago
  Bitcoin's energy consumption is also by design self balancing - increase the price of electricity, less electricity will be used. With the same benefits for the network.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Not really, it's self-balancing with respect to the efficiency of the technology around it. As tech gets better, Bitcoin gets worse to compensate.
_Microft 7y ago
> It's comparable to what a single hydro dam like the Three Gorges Dam can produce. Which happens to be one of, if not the largest hydroelectric dam in the world. > Besides, as it's been said many times, miners tend to use renewables since they have become cheaper than fossil fuel power plants. Which means that this renewable energy is no longer available for other uses.

trickstra 7y ago

It's not a "waste" if the result is a decentralized, trustless, robust digital currency. And the global warming argument is a many times debunked hoax - if anyone has better use of that electricity, they are welcome to use it, which will make mining cryptocurrency unprofitable. Except in the other cases, the benefits go to the single entity that owns the business, whereas with cryptocurrency every participant benefits from the stronger network. Global warming is caused by using fossil fuels to make electricity, mining crypto doesn't require fossil fuels. There are other ways to make electricity, let's focus on them.

danmaz74 7y ago
> if anyone has better use of that electricity, they are welcome to use it, which will make mining cryptocurrency unprofitable I'm sorry, but you got this backwards. If bitcoin becomes a relevant part of the world economy, then it HAS to use a relevant part of the world energy, because consuming energy for PoW is the only limiting factor against a 51% attack. So, either Bitcoin is irrelevant - and thus its power usage is a literal waste - or it's relevant, and then its power usage has to become relevant in terms of global warming.
- trickstra 7y ago
  From the point of view of the miner, they have a supply of electricity at a certain price and can decide what to do with it. They might run their TV, computer, heating, industrial machinery, datacenter, or a bitcoin miner. They have to compute what profits can each of the options give them. If running bitcoin miners at that electricity cost and at that profit they can get from selling the bitcoins is more profitable than the others, then it's logical to do that. If on the other hand the price of bitcoin goes down, or the price of electricity goes up, or people start paying more for server hosting, then the decision changes. The fact that miners are now mining, means it's currently most rational to do that, given what society (users, participants) are willing to pay for the services.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    If bitcoin is the dominant currency, another option exists: 51% attack, double-spend to get free electricity. This is useful even when it makes an apparent loss by damaging trust in the currency: If you are, say, the USA president and you’re at war with Iraq, and Iraq uses bitcoin, you can outspend on energy until they surrender. Unless the whole world uses bitcoin, but then the first few nations individually face the same problem, regardless of who else actually uses bitcoin — gotta keep the USA and China happy at the same time! (The EU isn’t integrated enough to do that sort of thing yet, but is a similar sized group). Right now, 51% needs the cost of one very large power station from when you start until when you win — large nations, the sort with global ambitions, can spare a lot more. In the previous example, that’s close to all the power Iraq produces, but 5.4% of the USA’s output. Then there’s the fact that most countries like being in charge of their own currencies as the ability to create or destroy units is a useful economic lever. > The fact that miners are now mining, means it's currently most rational to do that, given what society (users, participants) are willing to pay for the services. Or it’s speculation, like so many other things before and probably yet to come.

toxik 7y ago

Said the man living one of the most privileged lives possible on this planet. Bitcoin has a very clear use to the oppressed people of the world, and for that exact reason it’s popular among criminals.

krageon 7y ago

From a position of power it is easy to do without, because you derive no security or finances from this solution. After all, the status quo is paying you just fine. Why is what you say relevant for most people, who to varying degrees definitely don't have all the things that you apparently take for granted?

danmaz74 7y ago
Is having food on the table and a roof on their head relevant to "most people"? Because, when we're talking about climate change, that's what is at risk for hundreds of millions of people.