5 ms·

The argument about CO2 emissions and bitcoin seems reflexive and ill-informed. The reality is, it’s very small. Bitcoin is estimated to emit 22 million tonnes

by Gatsky 6y ago

The argument about CO2 emissions and bitcoin seems reflexive and ill-informed. The reality is, it’s very small. Bitcoin is estimated to emit 22 million tonnes of CO2, and that is based on country level energy generation mix [1]. In reality it is probably lower due to cost benefits of renewables like hydro. Global emissions are 50 billion [2]. Pornography causes 10x as much CO2 as bitcoin [3]. [1] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/bitcoin-use-causing-huge-co2-emissions-study/articleshow/69821838.cms https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/bitcoin-us... [2] https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector [3] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2209569-streaming-online-pornography-produces-as-much-co2-as-belgium/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2209569-streaming-onlin...

rektide 6y ago
46 TWh/y mentioned in this link comes to ~5.25 GW continuous usage. With an actual transaction rate of ~4 tps in 2021, each transaction takes ~364.6 kWh. Enough to send a top efficiency Tesla down the entire West coast. To give some idea of the magnitude of this draw, some reference figures: the 95 nuclear power plants in the US have a net capacity of ~98 GW of power. Two reactors under construction will add ~1.25GW capacity. Even by these fairly low estimates linked, about 4-5 nuclear power plants. The numbers on porn's power consumption are just horseshit. The methodology was to take all power consumption of data centers combined, and say that whatever % of internet traffic/throughput is porn is what % of data-center power consumption porn is responsible for. This is just abjectly insulting bad math, presented as insightful: just absolute junk worthless numbers. Porn & video in general has radically higher bandwidth-to-cpu usage ratios than many applications, sendfile() is stupid efficient, caches run hot for popular videos, and sending the bits around is just not that costly. Running cpus and gpus is what constitutes the bulk of the energy expenditure in data centers, not switches, yet porn is getting dinged as though it's traffic is the only thing that matters. Pieces like this should be rescinded & apologies should be issued. Bitcoin is a monster & energy wastage of this class is an abomination. It should not be tolerated in a society that has it's head screwed on straight.
- Gatsky 6y ago
  That’s an upper bound on bitcoin power usage as I said, it is also a ‘horseshit’ calculation as per your classification. I’m not sure how equating it to driving down the coast is a meaningful comparison. Although the porn calculation is not ‘accurate’ I doubt it is wrong by an order of magnitude.
  - rektide 6y ago
    I'd wager the porn calculation is wrong by at least two orders of magnitude. It's grossly ineptly inaccurate. Data-centers do work. Sending porn/videos to people is easy, hardly work at all. sendfile() is amazing. Try it. This article you linked is trying to re-set the numbers, argue that most other calculations are significantly high. Many calculations are well over 7.5GW. The 5.25 this article presents is a conservative number. Even if it's half that number, it's still astronomically high. And it's not going to be an order of magnitude over the reality. Unlike this no-good lying dirtbag porn estimate. Driving down the coast is supposed to drill home what a giant flaming pile of garbage energy efficiency bitcoin has. It's supposed to try to impress what 5.25GW of power means, make real what each transaction's 1/4 of a second of that sort of power consumption can do. It's supposed to impress upon us how irresponsible it is that anyone would use this system, how desperate they would have to be to waste so much energy, to screw over humanity with such a gratuitous waste of energy supporting this deranged insane scheme, just to avoid using the monetary systems the world has. Yes. Unfortunately many people lack other means to put their wealth into into stable currencies, & that is sad, causes big hardships for them that are cruel, but for every other reason brought forth: bitcoin is a ruinous colossal waste & it's presence on this earth is an embarrassment.
    - rektide 6y ago
      Next up, ask me how I feel about space tourism!
    - Gatsky 6y ago
      It’s obvious you consider bitcoin immoral, and are willing to grasp any negative aspect and distort it as much as possible. This means for example you aren’t bothering to understand the point that it is not the energy consumption estimate that is the relevant upper bound, it is the emissions of the energy sources being used. Why do you care so much about how hydroelectric power in remote China is being used anyway? Well it seems that neither of us have intimate knowledge of the power usage required to serve video at scale (sendfile()? Give me a break..).

by Gatsky 6y ago

rektide 6y ago

46 TWh/y mentioned in this link comes to ~5.25 GW continuous usage. With an actual transaction rate of ~4 tps in 2021, each transaction takes ~364.6 kWh. Enough to send a top efficiency Tesla down the entire West coast. To give some idea of the magnitude of this draw, some reference figures: the 95 nuclear power plants in the US have a net capacity of ~98 GW of power. Two reactors under construction will add ~1.25GW capacity. Even by these fairly low estimates linked, about 4-5 nuclear power plants. The numbers on porn's power consumption are just horseshit. The methodology was to take all power consumption of data centers combined, and say that whatever % of internet traffic/throughput is porn is what % of data-center power consumption porn is responsible for. This is just abjectly insulting bad math, presented as insightful: just absolute junk worthless numbers. Porn & video in general has radically higher bandwidth-to-cpu usage ratios than many applications, sendfile() is stupid efficient, caches run hot for popular videos, and sending the bits around is just not that costly. Running cpus and gpus is what constitutes the bulk of the energy expenditure in data centers, not switches, yet porn is getting dinged as though it's traffic is the only thing that matters. Pieces like this should be rescinded & apologies should be issued. Bitcoin is a monster & energy wastage of this class is an abomination. It should not be tolerated in a society that has it's head screwed on straight.

Gatsky 6y ago
That’s an upper bound on bitcoin power usage as I said, it is also a ‘horseshit’ calculation as per your classification. I’m not sure how equating it to driving down the coast is a meaningful comparison. Although the porn calculation is not ‘accurate’ I doubt it is wrong by an order of magnitude.
- rektide 6y ago
  I'd wager the porn calculation is wrong by at least two orders of magnitude. It's grossly ineptly inaccurate. Data-centers do work. Sending porn/videos to people is easy, hardly work at all. sendfile() is amazing. Try it. This article you linked is trying to re-set the numbers, argue that most other calculations are significantly high. Many calculations are well over 7.5GW. The 5.25 this article presents is a conservative number. Even if it's half that number, it's still astronomically high. And it's not going to be an order of magnitude over the reality. Unlike this no-good lying dirtbag porn estimate. Driving down the coast is supposed to drill home what a giant flaming pile of garbage energy efficiency bitcoin has. It's supposed to try to impress what 5.25GW of power means, make real what each transaction's 1/4 of a second of that sort of power consumption can do. It's supposed to impress upon us how irresponsible it is that anyone would use this system, how desperate they would have to be to waste so much energy, to screw over humanity with such a gratuitous waste of energy supporting this deranged insane scheme, just to avoid using the monetary systems the world has. Yes. Unfortunately many people lack other means to put their wealth into into stable currencies, & that is sad, causes big hardships for them that are cruel, but for every other reason brought forth: bitcoin is a ruinous colossal waste & it's presence on this earth is an embarrassment.
  - rektide 6y ago
    Next up, ask me how I feel about space tourism!
  - Gatsky 6y ago
    It’s obvious you consider bitcoin immoral, and are willing to grasp any negative aspect and distort it as much as possible. This means for example you aren’t bothering to understand the point that it is not the energy consumption estimate that is the relevant upper bound, it is the emissions of the energy sources being used. Why do you care so much about how hydroelectric power in remote China is being used anyway? Well it seems that neither of us have intimate knowledge of the power usage required to serve video at scale (sendfile()? Give me a break..).