5 ms·

The author misses the point. The root of the problem is that electricity is not carbon free. What the electricity is used for is irrelevant. What the author sug

The author misses the point. The root of the problem is that electricity is not carbon free. What the electricity is used for is irrelevant. What the author suggests would be similar to saying, "let's stop climate change by minimizing our driving instead of transitioning to electric transport."

ForHackernews 6y ago
No, even if the electricity were carbon-free there would still be an opportunity cost in wasting ever-increasing amounts of it doing bitcoin mining instead of, say, aluminium smelting, or powering electric trains, or any other useful thing. Also just for the record, minimizing driving is a good way to combat climate change.
eightails 6y ago
I think the point was that POW specifically is an inefficient method of verification. They weren't arguing against the notion of using energy to run a virtual currency, just that Bitcoin specifically is needlessly wasteful, so we should move to alternative cryptocurrencies. So actually I think they are arguing for 'switching to electric transport', to use your example.
cycomanic 6y ago
But that's exactly the best way to reduce global warming, minimize consumption. Obviously to minimize consumption you should cut away the things that provide the least value for the highest reduction. So for example turn of lights during the night in empty buildings is much better than using renewable energy to power the lights.
jonhendry18 6y ago
"What the author suggests would be similar to saying," No, because driving has a legitimate purpose.
- herewegoagain2 6y ago
  In many cases it doesn't.
  - jonhendry18 6y ago
    More legitimate than mining coins that'll be put in a wallet that ends up in a landfill.
  - tomComb 6y ago
    Yeah, and we should try (eg. the correct incentives) to reduce driving that has no purpose or value. Just because it exists doesn't make it a good thing in the current circumstances.

ForHackernews 6y ago

No, even if the electricity were carbon-free there would still be an opportunity cost in wasting ever-increasing amounts of it doing bitcoin mining instead of, say, aluminium smelting, or powering electric trains, or any other useful thing. Also just for the record, minimizing driving is a good way to combat climate change.

eightails 6y ago

I think the point was that POW specifically is an inefficient method of verification. They weren't arguing against the notion of using energy to run a virtual currency, just that Bitcoin specifically is needlessly wasteful, so we should move to alternative cryptocurrencies. So actually I think they are arguing for 'switching to electric transport', to use your example.

cycomanic 6y ago

But that's exactly the best way to reduce global warming, minimize consumption. Obviously to minimize consumption you should cut away the things that provide the least value for the highest reduction. So for example turn of lights during the night in empty buildings is much better than using renewable energy to power the lights.

jonhendry18 6y ago

"What the author suggests would be similar to saying," No, because driving has a legitimate purpose.

herewegoagain2 6y ago
In many cases it doesn't.
- jonhendry18 6y ago
  More legitimate than mining coins that'll be put in a wallet that ends up in a landfill.
- tomComb 6y ago
  Yeah, and we should try (eg. the correct incentives) to reduce driving that has no purpose or value. Just because it exists doesn't make it a good thing in the current circumstances.