5 ms·

Video gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin. So do porn sites. Bitcoin just seems like an easy target because people are more directly profiting off

Video gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin. So do porn sites. Bitcoin just seems like an easy target because people are more directly profiting off of it.

luhn 6y ago
Source? All these whatabout takes I've seen compare the sum total of some hugely popular activity to the relatively small userbase of Bitcoin. I'm highly skeptical Bitcoin would compare favorably on a per-user basis.
minikites 6y ago
Video games and porn sites serve some purpose. Bitcoin is virtual Monopoly money for libertarians.
- recursive 6y ago
  > Bitcoin is [...] That's a purpose.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  Bitcoin's purpose is to provide a global append-only (ie, non-censorable) database. It doesn't actually serve that purpose, but that's true of, eg, 'free'-to-play mobile games as well.
wmf 6y ago
Gaming and computer hardware is ruthlessly optimized to be as energy-efficient as possible while Bitcoin mining is specifically designed to waste energy even though more efficient ways (PoS) exist. Cable boxes used to waste massive amounts of energy (because GI/SA don't pay your power bill) and eventually the government stepped in to force efficiency. So no, Bitcoin isn't being unfairly singled out for criticism.
- thebean11 6y ago
  Bitcoin mining does not waste energy in the same way cable boxes did. The more energy is "wasted" the more secure the network is. This isn't an argument that it's worth the energy expenditure, or that there aren't alternate ways to get the same level of security, but it's an apples and oranges comparison.
  - wmf 6y ago
    Bitcoin: 6 GW Avalanche: < 1 MW Keep telling me how "securing the network isn't waste".
    - thebean11 6y ago
      Uhh, not sure what that is, but at a quick glance it seems completely orthogonal?
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    The more energy is "wasted" the more secure the network is That's a bit like saying the more resources you spend on something, the better it is. Are there crypto currencies that have comparable levels of security with less resources spent on it? Is it theoretically possible to have a crypto currency where the resource requirements don't scale as dramatically as they do with bitcoin? Even if we grant that more energy == greater security, there's still the question of whether or not the resources per unit of security (however you want to measure "security") might be more efficient using some other methodology.
- my123 6y ago
  Mining through aka PoW at least does redistribution. PoS means that current owners just get more and more *coin.
  - mrits 6y ago
    Are you sure about that? Do you not think the mining is extremely concentrated by a handful of big players and is going to become increasing more so as the hardware needed is becoming more difficult to obtain?
    - 3np 6y ago
      This is a bit of a myth. The actual mining is very fragmented and so are the Chinese mining pools.
      - mrits 6y ago
        There is an appearance of fragmentation. If you look at the order from the supply chain it would lead you to believe this is not the case. It's not going to be even be easy for anyone in retail to get an ASIC miner for the foreseeable future.
        3np 6y ago
        Hardware manufacturing for ASICs is indeed mainly from Bitmain and a few others - how does that matter here?
        3np 6y ago
        (Too late to edit, but to get the point home): Would you argue that non-blockchain computing is centralized just from the fact that Intel and TSMC arguable control the CPU manufacturing?
        mrits 6y ago
        Bitmain gives preferential treatment to certain vendors. This is problematic with a massive supply shortage. It makes it worst when the hardware that already exists starts to become worthless.
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  >Gaming and computer hardware is ruthlessly optimized to be as energy-efficient as possible And yet gaming still wastes more energy than crypto. Poor argument.
n4r9 6y ago
The other reason is that the average person does not obviously derive value from its existence.
paulgb 6y ago
> Video gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin. This seems dubious.
ur-whale 6y ago
>Bitcoin just seems like an easy target because people are more directly profiting off of it There's a name for that particular ailment: it's called acute nocoiner syndrom.
ineedasername 6y ago
The question really isn't whether other endeavors waste more resources, it's whether the goals of Bitcoin could be achieved with fewer resources. Also how are you measuring the environmental impact of video gaming & or porn? Are their white papers out there with a comparative analysis?

Video gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin. So do porn sites. Bitcoin just seems like an easy target because people are more directly profiting off of it.

luhn 6y ago

Source? All these whatabout takes I've seen compare the sum total of some hugely popular activity to the relatively small userbase of Bitcoin. I'm highly skeptical Bitcoin would compare favorably on a per-user basis.

minikites 6y ago

Video games and porn sites serve some purpose. Bitcoin is virtual Monopoly money for libertarians.

recursive 6y ago
> Bitcoin is [...] That's a purpose.
a1369209993 6y ago
Bitcoin's purpose is to provide a global append-only (ie, non-censorable) database. It doesn't actually serve that purpose, but that's true of, eg, 'free'-to-play mobile games as well.

wmf 6y ago

Gaming and computer hardware is ruthlessly optimized to be as energy-efficient as possible while Bitcoin mining is specifically designed to waste energy even though more efficient ways (PoS) exist. Cable boxes used to waste massive amounts of energy (because GI/SA don't pay your power bill) and eventually the government stepped in to force efficiency. So no, Bitcoin isn't being unfairly singled out for criticism.

thebean11 6y ago
Bitcoin mining does not waste energy in the same way cable boxes did. The more energy is "wasted" the more secure the network is. This isn't an argument that it's worth the energy expenditure, or that there aren't alternate ways to get the same level of security, but it's an apples and oranges comparison.
- wmf 6y ago
  Bitcoin: 6 GW Avalanche: < 1 MW Keep telling me how "securing the network isn't waste".
  - thebean11 6y ago
    Uhh, not sure what that is, but at a quick glance it seems completely orthogonal?
- ineedasername 6y ago
  The more energy is "wasted" the more secure the network is That's a bit like saying the more resources you spend on something, the better it is. Are there crypto currencies that have comparable levels of security with less resources spent on it? Is it theoretically possible to have a crypto currency where the resource requirements don't scale as dramatically as they do with bitcoin? Even if we grant that more energy == greater security, there's still the question of whether or not the resources per unit of security (however you want to measure "security") might be more efficient using some other methodology.
my123 6y ago
Mining through aka PoW at least does redistribution. PoS means that current owners just get more and more *coin.
- mrits 6y ago
  Are you sure about that? Do you not think the mining is extremely concentrated by a handful of big players and is going to become increasing more so as the hardware needed is becoming more difficult to obtain?
  - 3np 6y ago
    This is a bit of a myth. The actual mining is very fragmented and so are the Chinese mining pools.
    - mrits 6y ago
      There is an appearance of fragmentation. If you look at the order from the supply chain it would lead you to believe this is not the case. It's not going to be even be easy for anyone in retail to get an ASIC miner for the foreseeable future.
      - 3np 6y ago
        Hardware manufacturing for ASICs is indeed mainly from Bitmain and a few others - how does that matter here?
        3np 6y ago
        (Too late to edit, but to get the point home): Would you argue that non-blockchain computing is centralized just from the fact that Intel and TSMC arguable control the CPU manufacturing?
        mrits 6y ago
        Bitmain gives preferential treatment to certain vendors. This is problematic with a massive supply shortage. It makes it worst when the hardware that already exists starts to become worthless.
oarabbus_ 6y ago
>Gaming and computer hardware is ruthlessly optimized to be as energy-efficient as possible And yet gaming still wastes more energy than crypto. Poor argument.

n4r9 6y ago

The other reason is that the average person does not obviously derive value from its existence.

paulgb 6y ago

> Video gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin. This seems dubious.

ur-whale 6y ago

>Bitcoin just seems like an easy target because people are more directly profiting off of it There's a name for that particular ailment: it's called acute nocoiner syndrom.

ineedasername 6y ago

The question really isn't whether other endeavors waste more resources, it's whether the goals of Bitcoin could be achieved with fewer resources. Also how are you measuring the environmental impact of video gaming & or porn? Are their white papers out there with a comparative analysis?