7 ms·

It seems really weird to compare the energy consumption to that of a country. "The total energy usage for the production of cars/yachts/fitness machines/musica

It seems really weird to compare the energy consumption to that of a country. "The total energy usage for the production of cars/yachts/fitness machines/musical instruments/toilets equals that of country X" What does it even mean? How do you interpret it? It seems more sensible to compare to total worldwide energy consumption of which Bitcoin takes roughly 0.05%

zaarn 6y ago
Considering you're talking worldwide energy consumption, 0.05% is a lot of energy. Just because the number is small doesn't mean it's not large by comparison.
- shawnz 6y ago
  True, but similarly just because the number is big in an absolute sense also doesn't mean it is actually a worthwhile target for reducing emissions. There are plenty of lower-hanging fruit.
  - zaarn 6y ago
    It's 0.05% of energy that could be used elsewhere to reduce emissions (since a lot of miners sit on renewable energy). It's a worthwhile target because it#s easy to fix: don't waste energy like that. edit: additionally a lot of small crap is still a pile or crap at the end of the day, the small little energy wasters (comparatively) still make up a combined total that is wortwhile to take on.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      That isn't an easy fix though, unless you can find some other way to replace the unique advantages that Bitcoin is providing to users. This is like saying "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Just don't drive!"
      - zaarn 6y ago
        The fix is to use alternative consensus mechanisms like PoS. It's not "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Just don't drive" it's "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Use more efficient types of engines such as electric or sterling motors".
        shawnz 6y ago
        I can agree with you that PoS is the most promising fix, but even still I don't think it's an easy fix just because the technology exists. For example electric engines are an easy fix technically, but there are still lots of political and practical barriers that need to be solved before they can achieve widespread adoption. It will take time for the market to build the same level of trust in PoS systems that they have in PoW systems.
Fischinn 6y ago
bitcoin was just an idea a few years/a decade ago and is now here. Its existing directly consumes as much energy as a whole fucking country. I find that a very visible and easy comparision. If i would invent something and it would consume that much energy just for transactions, i would consider this a gigantic issue.
igorkraw 6y ago
Countries have millions of people in them, which are doing many things with that energy. It illustrates the waste. Visa is an alternative technology providing a service that bitcoin is intended to replace (preemptive statement: I am simplifying and very familiar with the crypto true believers various conceptions of what crypto currency "really is", don't waste your time not picking this please), so it is a valid comparison to illustrate the inefficiency
- tomtomtom777 6y ago
  > Countries have millions of people in them, which are doing many things with that energy. It illustrates the waste. But Bitcoin is something that people are doing with energy in countries. It is 1/2000th of the average person's footprint. Is doesn't seem reasonable to call, say, people flying around in airplanes doing something with energy while calling Bitcoin "waste".
  - igorkraw 6y ago
    You would have to show that bitcoin transactions are globally uniformly distributed for that claim to hold well. The rest of you argument hinges on the idea that the value created by bitcoin on-chain transactions is equivalent to that of airplane usage (the fact that our current air plane usage is wasteful aside), an argument I won't get into without evidence-of-good-faith
    - tomtomtom777 6y ago
      I am simply pointing out that the usage of Bitcoin or something else is better assessed as comparison to global consumption. Trying to map energy usage per product/category to energy usage per country is not insightful and misleading, as it suggests the product/category is not part of the country's energy consumption. I am not at all arguing that Bitcoin is useful, or that its energy consumption isn't excessive.
- WanderPanda 6y ago
  Can not withstand, sorry: Bitcoin is a store of value nowadays. If you want to compare it in an environmental-impact way then compare it e.g. against gold mining.
Spivak 6y ago
Because you’re comparing the energy consumption of this one thing to the total energy consumption of $x million households along with all the country’s local industry to say that Bitcoin isn’t worth that cost compared to an alternative that requires trusted parties but uses orders of magnitude less energy.

zaarn 6y ago

Considering you're talking worldwide energy consumption, 0.05% is a lot of energy. Just because the number is small doesn't mean it's not large by comparison.

shawnz 6y ago
True, but similarly just because the number is big in an absolute sense also doesn't mean it is actually a worthwhile target for reducing emissions. There are plenty of lower-hanging fruit.
- zaarn 6y ago
  It's 0.05% of energy that could be used elsewhere to reduce emissions (since a lot of miners sit on renewable energy). It's a worthwhile target because it#s easy to fix: don't waste energy like that. edit: additionally a lot of small crap is still a pile or crap at the end of the day, the small little energy wasters (comparatively) still make up a combined total that is wortwhile to take on.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    That isn't an easy fix though, unless you can find some other way to replace the unique advantages that Bitcoin is providing to users. This is like saying "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Just don't drive!"
    - zaarn 6y ago
      The fix is to use alternative consensus mechanisms like PoS. It's not "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Just don't drive" it's "killing combustion engines is an easy fix: Use more efficient types of engines such as electric or sterling motors".
      - shawnz 6y ago
        I can agree with you that PoS is the most promising fix, but even still I don't think it's an easy fix just because the technology exists. For example electric engines are an easy fix technically, but there are still lots of political and practical barriers that need to be solved before they can achieve widespread adoption. It will take time for the market to build the same level of trust in PoS systems that they have in PoW systems.

Fischinn 6y ago

bitcoin was just an idea a few years/a decade ago and is now here. Its existing directly consumes as much energy as a whole fucking country. I find that a very visible and easy comparision. If i would invent something and it would consume that much energy just for transactions, i would consider this a gigantic issue.

igorkraw 6y ago

Countries have millions of people in them, which are doing many things with that energy. It illustrates the waste. Visa is an alternative technology providing a service that bitcoin is intended to replace (preemptive statement: I am simplifying and very familiar with the crypto true believers various conceptions of what crypto currency "really is", don't waste your time not picking this please), so it is a valid comparison to illustrate the inefficiency

tomtomtom777 6y ago
> Countries have millions of people in them, which are doing many things with that energy. It illustrates the waste. But Bitcoin is something that people are doing with energy in countries. It is 1/2000th of the average person's footprint. Is doesn't seem reasonable to call, say, people flying around in airplanes doing something with energy while calling Bitcoin "waste".
- igorkraw 6y ago
  You would have to show that bitcoin transactions are globally uniformly distributed for that claim to hold well. The rest of you argument hinges on the idea that the value created by bitcoin on-chain transactions is equivalent to that of airplane usage (the fact that our current air plane usage is wasteful aside), an argument I won't get into without evidence-of-good-faith
  - tomtomtom777 6y ago
    I am simply pointing out that the usage of Bitcoin or something else is better assessed as comparison to global consumption. Trying to map energy usage per product/category to energy usage per country is not insightful and misleading, as it suggests the product/category is not part of the country's energy consumption. I am not at all arguing that Bitcoin is useful, or that its energy consumption isn't excessive.
WanderPanda 6y ago
Can not withstand, sorry: Bitcoin is a store of value nowadays. If you want to compare it in an environmental-impact way then compare it e.g. against gold mining.

Spivak 6y ago

Because you’re comparing the energy consumption of this one thing to the total energy consumption of $x million households along with all the country’s local industry to say that Bitcoin isn’t worth that cost compared to an alternative that requires trusted parties but uses orders of magnitude less energy.