3 ms·

(1) power is not free, even green energy. It has production, labor, and material costs. (2) using the term 'excess' green energy is a false statement. There is

(1) power is not free, even green energy. It has production, labor, and material costs. (2) using the term 'excess' green energy is a false statement. There is no such thing as excess green energy while a bulk of the grid is still coal/gas/etc. (3) Bitcoin has led to a drain on GPU availability and in turn on the finite capacity of our semiconductor fabs. Arguably for nothing.

emteycz 6y ago
> There is no such thing as excess green energy while a bulk of the grid is still coal/gas/etc. Are you saying transporting and storing electricity is free or easy? Can you source that please? As far as I know many megawatts of electricity go to literal waste every day because it's actually extremely hard to store or transfer. > power is not free, even green energy. It has production, labor, and material costs Indeed. And thanks to Bitcoin powerplants can be paid for electricity that will be generated anyways but would go to waste, thus making green energy cheaper. > Arguably for nothing. For trustless, quick and reliable transfers of money, which are for example improving the life of many Nigerians.
- lucb1e 6y ago
  > Can you source that please? This is like asking for a source on where 5G was shown not to cause corona. There is a difference between critical thinking and questioning generally accepted statements. You know as well as anyone that energy transportation isn't free or easy, why ask as GP to show that? You're implying that it's more environmentally friendly to build a big power plant in the middle of nowhere, then ship a bunch of ASICs there as well, and then mine bitcoin, rather than just not do that and use the investment money to renewable energy somewhere else. Heck, even if you did build a power plant in the middle of nowhere and intend to ship computers there, why not ship machine learning there? For example I know that DeepL has megawatts of GPUs for learning for the purposes of translation. There is no latency issue here, they can do this anywhere in the world. It's clearly better to use the energy for these purposes than for mining proofs of work.
  - emteycz 6y ago
    I think you misunderstood greatly. What I am saying is that powerplants are built close to human settlements because electricity can't be economically transported or stored, and that there are many times when electricity is given out nearly or completely for free as there is too much of it and it can't be stopped - actually there are many times when powerplants pay you for taking electricity - and that's when Bitcoin miners step in. I'm sure they'd happily give that electricity to DeepL too, if they asked.
    - lucb1e 6y ago
      > What I am saying is that [...] there are many times when electricity is given out nearly or completely for free as there is too much of it and it can't be stopped No, that's a different argument. Your second point says that, not your first. I just replied to your first. For the second argument, that's less crazy, but still not true. Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. And there are still surpluses that are thrown away despite cryptocurrencies using power. Bitcoin doesn't tap into the grid and run only when there is a surplus; virtually all miners run it regardless of the current energy price on wholesale markets. If they didn't, we'd see huge fluctuations in the hash rate and they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that, so apparently it's not being used this way and doesn't fund renewable energy that would otherwise not be built. > I'm sure they'd happily give that electricity to DeepL too, if they asked. Oh come on now, that's like arguing that "I'm sure the thief would have given the bike back if asked nicely!" Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here?" I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>".
      - emteycz 6y ago
        In the first point I am asking the commenter to source their claim that electricity could be easily transported to places where fossil fuels are used. I am saying that it's not feasible to transport it there and Bitcoin is not the reason why we're not doing that. > Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here? Yes, that's exactly what they ask. Have you actually tried to visit a powerplant and talk to them about this? I did. This is exactly what they ask when they can't find enough demand for their electricity - they need someone to take it, that's why negative electricity rates exist. > they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that Geothermals, nuclear, hydro, wind + global network with a huge amount of participants = it's hard to distinguish individual localized factors. > Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. Not at all. Annualized waste electricity from EU is multiples more than what Bitcoin uses annually. Then we count in China, India, ... > I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>". Nobody is building powerplants for Bitcoin (except for very few geothermals) - it's absolutely not profitable. It's much better to put that electricity into the grid for consumer or industrial usage; providing it to Bitcoin miners is done when nobody wants more electricity but they have it anyways.
sygma 6y ago
(3) reveals that you are not as well informed as you make it sound. Bitcoin hasn’t been mined on GPUs for years.
- lucb1e 6y ago
  You are right that Bitcoin specifically doesn't use GPUs anymore, but GP's point still firmly stands even if you eliminate #3.

emteycz 6y ago

> There is no such thing as excess green energy while a bulk of the grid is still coal/gas/etc. Are you saying transporting and storing electricity is free or easy? Can you source that please? As far as I know many megawatts of electricity go to literal waste every day because it's actually extremely hard to store or transfer. > power is not free, even green energy. It has production, labor, and material costs Indeed. And thanks to Bitcoin powerplants can be paid for electricity that will be generated anyways but would go to waste, thus making green energy cheaper. > Arguably for nothing. For trustless, quick and reliable transfers of money, which are for example improving the life of many Nigerians.

lucb1e 6y ago
> Can you source that please? This is like asking for a source on where 5G was shown not to cause corona. There is a difference between critical thinking and questioning generally accepted statements. You know as well as anyone that energy transportation isn't free or easy, why ask as GP to show that? You're implying that it's more environmentally friendly to build a big power plant in the middle of nowhere, then ship a bunch of ASICs there as well, and then mine bitcoin, rather than just not do that and use the investment money to renewable energy somewhere else. Heck, even if you did build a power plant in the middle of nowhere and intend to ship computers there, why not ship machine learning there? For example I know that DeepL has megawatts of GPUs for learning for the purposes of translation. There is no latency issue here, they can do this anywhere in the world. It's clearly better to use the energy for these purposes than for mining proofs of work.
- emteycz 6y ago
  I think you misunderstood greatly. What I am saying is that powerplants are built close to human settlements because electricity can't be economically transported or stored, and that there are many times when electricity is given out nearly or completely for free as there is too much of it and it can't be stopped - actually there are many times when powerplants pay you for taking electricity - and that's when Bitcoin miners step in. I'm sure they'd happily give that electricity to DeepL too, if they asked.
  - lucb1e 6y ago
    > What I am saying is that [...] there are many times when electricity is given out nearly or completely for free as there is too much of it and it can't be stopped No, that's a different argument. Your second point says that, not your first. I just replied to your first. For the second argument, that's less crazy, but still not true. Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. And there are still surpluses that are thrown away despite cryptocurrencies using power. Bitcoin doesn't tap into the grid and run only when there is a surplus; virtually all miners run it regardless of the current energy price on wholesale markets. If they didn't, we'd see huge fluctuations in the hash rate and they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that, so apparently it's not being used this way and doesn't fund renewable energy that would otherwise not be built. > I'm sure they'd happily give that electricity to DeepL too, if they asked. Oh come on now, that's like arguing that "I'm sure the thief would have given the bike back if asked nicely!" Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here?" I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>".
    - emteycz 6y ago
      In the first point I am asking the commenter to source their claim that electricity could be easily transported to places where fossil fuels are used. I am saying that it's not feasible to transport it there and Bitcoin is not the reason why we're not doing that. > Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here? Yes, that's exactly what they ask. Have you actually tried to visit a powerplant and talk to them about this? I did. This is exactly what they ask when they can't find enough demand for their electricity - they need someone to take it, that's why negative electricity rates exist. > they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that Geothermals, nuclear, hydro, wind + global network with a huge amount of participants = it's hard to distinguish individual localized factors. > Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. Not at all. Annualized waste electricity from EU is multiples more than what Bitcoin uses annually. Then we count in China, India, ... > I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>". Nobody is building powerplants for Bitcoin (except for very few geothermals) - it's absolutely not profitable. It's much better to put that electricity into the grid for consumer or industrial usage; providing it to Bitcoin miners is done when nobody wants more electricity but they have it anyways.

sygma 6y ago

(3) reveals that you are not as well informed as you make it sound. Bitcoin hasn’t been mined on GPUs for years.

lucb1e 6y ago
You are right that Bitcoin specifically doesn't use GPUs anymore, but GP's point still firmly stands even if you eliminate #3.