3 ms·

That site makes only a back of the hand assumption about how much energy use is a renewable or clean source. My work with large miners - who all rely on clean

That site makes only a back of the hand assumption about how much energy use is a renewable or clean source. My work with large miners - who all rely on clean or reducing pollution by using unused energy - and the economics of all miners would say that 75% of all mining is renewable energy. You would therefore have to divide all their problem metrics by 50-60%. Regarding "e-waste as much as Luxembough", is that really a lot? I don't actually know what to compare that to, all I see is "gasp a country!" and no quantitive metric compared to say any other industry or even other jurisdiction's use. With that in mind, I also am not sure it is accurate. Bitcoin e-waste doesn't really result in more machines, it results in the same amount of machines being replaced and doing more. This is because the economics has already pushed people to renewable energy sources, and the people that can already have. People that are just catching on are using people's "wasted" machines and mining with those. Ah the source you ask? All the private details about my clients. Hm, yeah not going to happen, there might be a few press releases, and there might be a few court documents that have nothing to do with mining but normal business disagreements in companies that do mine. The balanced answer is that this is something to remain vigilant about. Nations mining at a loss and printing currency to do so will absolutely not care about the power cost or source, and this is where we are headed. The private sector is not capable of doing this as uneconomically as that site suggests, pay attention as that site's assumptions are intertwined with facts. Just notice where they don't have any facts and be willing to balance that with other accounts like mine.

mulmen 6y ago
What is "unused" energy and why is crypto a better use for it than charging a battery or pumping some water up a hill? > You would therefore have to divide all their problem metrics by 50-60%. Do you mean the metrics would be doubled or halved? > Bitcoin e-waste doesn't really result in more machines, it results in the same amount of machines being replaced and doing more. I don't follow. If hardware is being used for crypto it isn't being used for something else. This must either push up the cost of hardware or simply add more to the total amount in the world. Hardware has a limited life so crypto must contribute to e-waste. Why is it appropriate to attribute the hardware usage to non-crypto workloads but not crypto? What's the difference?
- vmception 6y ago
  There is a lot of energy that is at the source of generation which looses efficiency to getting to residential or commercial areas. This energy is wasted. In many forms of energy generation the result is pollution. Crypto mining is unique because it is the first thing that requires no infrastructure. These are heavy computational services that don't need heavy internet infrastructure as mining is not bandwidth intensive and even satellite latency is good enough to submit the hashes. Its better than other use cases because those other use cases were more expensive than throwing pollution into the atmosphere simple as that. The entire story that crypto is “taking away” is wrong when it is giving in more cases than not because its the only economical way to mine. This goes hand in hand with the e-waste fallacy. The hardware doesn't go obsolete if the power costs are low enough, and at the remote power source it is low enough. There is a robust trade of “obsolete” hardware from people that have higher power costs to people that have lower power costs. Is new single purpose hardware being created for a purpose you don't respect even when confronted with new information? Yes. Is the impact overblown and oversimplified? Yes. Should you make sure the reality doesn't turn into the imagined nightmare? Yes. Remain vigilant, just have more accurate arguments so you know what to watch out for.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Are you suggesting crypto mines are colocated with power plants and make up for their energy use with gains in transmission loss? Couldn't a DC in a power plant do some other low bandwidth task instead? Why is crypto a unique "low bandwidth" application? Again, even if the hardware has a longer life due to "cheaper" energy why is crypto uniquely suited to take advantage of this? > Is new single purpose hardware being created for a purpose you don't respect even when confronted with new information? Yes. Is the impact overblown and oversimplified? Yes. Should you make sure the reality doesn't turn into the imagined nightmare? Yes. Remain vigilant, just have more accurate arguments so you know what to watch out for. This kind of cryptic condescension raises red flags for me. If you have information please share it. I am capable of making up my own mind without being talked down to.
    - vmception 6y ago
arcticbull 6y ago
> Regarding "e-waste as much as Luxembough", is that really a lot? Yes.
- vmception 6y ago
  One global industry having as much output as one of the tiniest countries in the world? Not even a tech heavy or very dense tiny country? There are simply stronger arguments to lean into...
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    It's not a global industry, its a 7 tps data store. You can replace it all with a single DynamoDB table.

mulmen 6y ago

What is "unused" energy and why is crypto a better use for it than charging a battery or pumping some water up a hill? > You would therefore have to divide all their problem metrics by 50-60%. Do you mean the metrics would be doubled or halved? > Bitcoin e-waste doesn't really result in more machines, it results in the same amount of machines being replaced and doing more. I don't follow. If hardware is being used for crypto it isn't being used for something else. This must either push up the cost of hardware or simply add more to the total amount in the world. Hardware has a limited life so crypto must contribute to e-waste. Why is it appropriate to attribute the hardware usage to non-crypto workloads but not crypto? What's the difference?

vmception 6y ago
There is a lot of energy that is at the source of generation which looses efficiency to getting to residential or commercial areas. This energy is wasted. In many forms of energy generation the result is pollution. Crypto mining is unique because it is the first thing that requires no infrastructure. These are heavy computational services that don't need heavy internet infrastructure as mining is not bandwidth intensive and even satellite latency is good enough to submit the hashes. Its better than other use cases because those other use cases were more expensive than throwing pollution into the atmosphere simple as that. The entire story that crypto is “taking away” is wrong when it is giving in more cases than not because its the only economical way to mine. This goes hand in hand with the e-waste fallacy. The hardware doesn't go obsolete if the power costs are low enough, and at the remote power source it is low enough. There is a robust trade of “obsolete” hardware from people that have higher power costs to people that have lower power costs. Is new single purpose hardware being created for a purpose you don't respect even when confronted with new information? Yes. Is the impact overblown and oversimplified? Yes. Should you make sure the reality doesn't turn into the imagined nightmare? Yes. Remain vigilant, just have more accurate arguments so you know what to watch out for.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Are you suggesting crypto mines are colocated with power plants and make up for their energy use with gains in transmission loss? Couldn't a DC in a power plant do some other low bandwidth task instead? Why is crypto a unique "low bandwidth" application? Again, even if the hardware has a longer life due to "cheaper" energy why is crypto uniquely suited to take advantage of this? > Is new single purpose hardware being created for a purpose you don't respect even when confronted with new information? Yes. Is the impact overblown and oversimplified? Yes. Should you make sure the reality doesn't turn into the imagined nightmare? Yes. Remain vigilant, just have more accurate arguments so you know what to watch out for. This kind of cryptic condescension raises red flags for me. If you have information please share it. I am capable of making up my own mind without being talked down to.
  - vmception 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

> Regarding "e-waste as much as Luxembough", is that really a lot? Yes.

vmception 6y ago
One global industry having as much output as one of the tiniest countries in the world? Not even a tech heavy or very dense tiny country? There are simply stronger arguments to lean into...
- arcticbull 6y ago
  It's not a global industry, its a 7 tps data store. You can replace it all with a single DynamoDB table.