4 ms·

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 u

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.

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.