3 ms·

> Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Exactly. I’d need to do some homework to prove it, but my theory is more power is used every second for Bitcoin

> Talk about missing the forest for the trees. Exactly. I’d need to do some homework to prove it, but my theory is more power is used every second for Bitcoin than an hour’s worth of videoconferencing worldwide. That said, we have to start somewhere, but is videoconferencing really the thing that’ll have any positive impact on CO2 emissions? Edit: Per this source[0] (no claims to its accuracy), a single transaction on Bitcoin causes nearly 300kg of CO2 to be emitted. So compared even to the high point of the article’s range (aka 1kg per hour meeting, though the included chart shows ~1/10th that for Zoom), that’s multiple orders of magnitude higher, per transaction. [0] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption Edit 2: I did some further research and multiple seemingly solid sources give conservative estimates of Bitcoin electricity consumption in the range of 80-100TWh per annum. To put that number in perspective, that’s more electricity per year than all of Google’s servers worldwide combined since its founding over twenty years ago (estimates put that number around 75TWh). I’m not going to keep digging, but based on the numbers I saw, I have a feeling Bitcoin uses more electricity per year than AWS, Google, FB, Microsoft, and Apple’s data centers combined per year. I’ll leave it to you to decide if Bitcoin is worth it and you should just turn off your webcam next time you’re on a videoconference to save the environment!

frankenst1 6y ago
Bitcoin's high electricity usage comes from finding the block (header), not from processing the transactions inside it, i.e. the same energy is used to find a block with 0 transactions or 10,000 transactions. So, more transactions don't cause higher electricity usage. All miners run similar hardware and software so the only way to be competitive is to find cheaper energy sources, which is why Bitcoin mining scoops up energy that is either very cheap, renewable or would be wasted otherwise (e.g. remote hydro power plants). So, electricity consumed on the Bitcoin network has a much smaller CO2/Wh impact than what you would expect on average. If any publication fails to acknowledge any of these key points in estimating Bitcoin's environmental impact, I would be very cautious in trusting their conclusions.
- jsjohnst 6y ago
  > which is why Bitcoin mining scoops up energy that is either very cheap, renewable or would be wasted otherwise (e.g. remote hydro power plants) You should’ve stopped at cheap, because the second too are conclusively wrong and well proven.
  - frankenst1 6y ago
    You really shouldn't trust articles that use metrics like CO2/tx or that claim to have "proven" Bitcoin's environmental impact. At the same time you shouldn't use such a "proof" as an excuse to dismiss conflicting information. Bitcoin mining is a very competitive field. Information about the actual energy mix and location of miners are guarded secrets. Researchers are thus using models to estimate these holes. Estimates on the electricity consumption of Bitcoin in 2018 are ranging from ~20 TWh/yr to >100 TWh/yr. Some papers assume coal fossil power only (0% renewables), global average energy mix (~10% renewables) or a regional energy mixes (~73% renewables [0]). Based on my experience with papers in that area, is that more recent papers with more complex models tend to produce higher estimates of the shares of renewables. It seems reasonable to me that Bitcoin is greener than many other industries because energy costs are the dominating factor in mining profitability and Bitcoin allows you to convert excess energy into money - at any remote location on this planet as long as you have an internet connection. [0]: https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-mining-network-december-2019.pdf https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-min...
    - jsjohnst 6y ago
      > You really shouldn't trust articles that use metrics like CO2/tx or that claim to have "proven" Bitcoin's environmental impact. So instead I should trust a random person on the internet whose account was created a short time ago, frequently shills Bitcoin, and gets easily proven facts wrong about BTC and needs to be corrected by others?
      - frankenst1 6y ago
        Please stick to the arguments at hand and don't attack the person/character. Sure, you could rely on account age and post history to determine if you "believe" what somebody says. The other option would be to actually read the sources/source code and come up with an informed opinion about falsifiable statements yourself. Although this might be more exhausting and has a risk of changing your opinion it might be the more rewarding one long term. And since it has been some time since you created your account, I'd like to recommend to brush up on the HN guidelines. I'm out.

frankenst1 6y ago

Bitcoin's high electricity usage comes from finding the block (header), not from processing the transactions inside it, i.e. the same energy is used to find a block with 0 transactions or 10,000 transactions. So, more transactions don't cause higher electricity usage. All miners run similar hardware and software so the only way to be competitive is to find cheaper energy sources, which is why Bitcoin mining scoops up energy that is either very cheap, renewable or would be wasted otherwise (e.g. remote hydro power plants). So, electricity consumed on the Bitcoin network has a much smaller CO2/Wh impact than what you would expect on average. If any publication fails to acknowledge any of these key points in estimating Bitcoin's environmental impact, I would be very cautious in trusting their conclusions.

jsjohnst 6y ago
> which is why Bitcoin mining scoops up energy that is either very cheap, renewable or would be wasted otherwise (e.g. remote hydro power plants) You should’ve stopped at cheap, because the second too are conclusively wrong and well proven.
- frankenst1 6y ago
  You really shouldn't trust articles that use metrics like CO2/tx or that claim to have "proven" Bitcoin's environmental impact. At the same time you shouldn't use such a "proof" as an excuse to dismiss conflicting information. Bitcoin mining is a very competitive field. Information about the actual energy mix and location of miners are guarded secrets. Researchers are thus using models to estimate these holes. Estimates on the electricity consumption of Bitcoin in 2018 are ranging from ~20 TWh/yr to >100 TWh/yr. Some papers assume coal fossil power only (0% renewables), global average energy mix (~10% renewables) or a regional energy mixes (~73% renewables [0]). Based on my experience with papers in that area, is that more recent papers with more complex models tend to produce higher estimates of the shares of renewables. It seems reasonable to me that Bitcoin is greener than many other industries because energy costs are the dominating factor in mining profitability and Bitcoin allows you to convert excess energy into money - at any remote location on this planet as long as you have an internet connection. [0]: https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-mining-network-december-2019.pdf https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-min...
  - jsjohnst 6y ago
    > You really shouldn't trust articles that use metrics like CO2/tx or that claim to have "proven" Bitcoin's environmental impact. So instead I should trust a random person on the internet whose account was created a short time ago, frequently shills Bitcoin, and gets easily proven facts wrong about BTC and needs to be corrected by others?
    - frankenst1 6y ago
      Please stick to the arguments at hand and don't attack the person/character. Sure, you could rely on account age and post history to determine if you "believe" what somebody says. The other option would be to actually read the sources/source code and come up with an informed opinion about falsifiable statements yourself. Although this might be more exhausting and has a risk of changing your opinion it might be the more rewarding one long term. And since it has been some time since you created your account, I'd like to recommend to brush up on the HN guidelines. I'm out.