8 ms·

It's disengenuous to make that argument without a comparison to the full manifold energy consumption required to support fiat cash... (including things like bur

It's disengenuous to make that argument without a comparison to the full manifold energy consumption required to support fiat cash... (including things like burning gasoline and jet fuel to move paper and metal for shredding/melting.)

paul_f 6y ago
I don't think we need a detailed study for most everyone to accept that fiat cash is several orders of magnitude less energy costly than bitcoin
- tal8d 6y ago
  You couldn't be more wrong, even the people complain about this made up problem will admit it when pressed. Follow the link and see for yourself.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  You’re not factoring in the military industrial complex cost of military enforcement of fiat currencies. You have to be factoring in the cost of militaries, fossil fuel exploits, and more. The cost of operating US dollars as a transactional concept is many, many, many orders of magnitude greater energy cost than Bitcoin.
- programmarchy 6y ago
  What’s hilarious about this argument is that people with an axe to grind with cryptocurrency suddenly become hyper-libertarians. They criticize its waste and inefficiency, while lauding fiat currency backed by the state, with all its largesse, as a paragon of efficiency. It’s sour grapes disguised as moral righteousness.
DNied 6y ago
A comparison with cash would be completely arbitrary: bitcoin doesn't replace cash, so it only adds to the problem.
wsinks 6y ago
The counter argument to this that I've seen and has me thinking about Bitcoin's value again is this one: Right now Bitcoin is an additive to the financial system, and actually promotes more usage of fiat. So if you were to compare the manifold energy consumption to Bitcoin, you need to somewhere also calculate those other effects. I can't find a reference, but there's a good phrase that talked about how for every new innovation that comes out and is going to "completely replace X", the actual equilibrium always turns into a hybrid of the legacy systems and the new systems. Much like we've seen with Bitcoin. So at least at this point, I find your argument disingenuous, because it doesn't take into effect the interplay of the systems.
- borland 6y ago
  Let's all agree that yes, it's complicated and that Bitcoin interacts with fiat currency, and that SOME of bitcoin's energy waste could be attributed to external factors. That still leaves us with bitcoin being an environmental disaster and a net loss for humanity, apart from the few people who are benefitting from the pyramid scheme right now; Thus, changing none of the arguments against it.
  - wsinks 6y ago
    Yes, I'm in agreement with you.
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
> (including things like burning gasoline and jet fuel to move paper and metal for shredding/melting.) In 2021, most transactions aren't made with paper cash and metal coins. It doesn't matter, though, because Bitcoin certainly isn't replacing traditional systems. The waste of Bitcoin is additive on top of any existing energy usage. Recent estimates compare the energy cost of a single Bitcoin transaction to around 700,000 credit card transactions, all things considered. ( https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ ) Notably, traditional transactions only get more efficient as our datacenters become faster and more energy efficient. Meanwhile, Bitcoin continues to consume ever-increasing amounts of energy while the number of supported transactions stays the same.
wsinks 6y ago
I know I just replied, but I just thought of something I hadn't thought of. How many of these Bitcoin miners are using their mining rigs as heaters? I'd be more stoked on it then. There was a Dutch company I knew that was using a distributed protocol to combine data computation in people's homes and have the heat be an actual dependable byproduct. I hope they're doing well. Such a cool idea.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  All of such heating that occurs instead of using the power to drive a heat pump is at a net cost to society. Even in Iceland, generating power instead of piping the heat directly to the building is an expense.

paul_f 6y ago

I don't think we need a detailed study for most everyone to accept that fiat cash is several orders of magnitude less energy costly than bitcoin

tal8d 6y ago
You couldn't be more wrong, even the people complain about this made up problem will admit it when pressed. Follow the link and see for yourself.
mlthoughts2018 6y ago
You’re not factoring in the military industrial complex cost of military enforcement of fiat currencies. You have to be factoring in the cost of militaries, fossil fuel exploits, and more. The cost of operating US dollars as a transactional concept is many, many, many orders of magnitude greater energy cost than Bitcoin.
programmarchy 6y ago
What’s hilarious about this argument is that people with an axe to grind with cryptocurrency suddenly become hyper-libertarians. They criticize its waste and inefficiency, while lauding fiat currency backed by the state, with all its largesse, as a paragon of efficiency. It’s sour grapes disguised as moral righteousness.

DNied 6y ago

A comparison with cash would be completely arbitrary: bitcoin doesn't replace cash, so it only adds to the problem.

wsinks 6y ago

The counter argument to this that I've seen and has me thinking about Bitcoin's value again is this one: Right now Bitcoin is an additive to the financial system, and actually promotes more usage of fiat. So if you were to compare the manifold energy consumption to Bitcoin, you need to somewhere also calculate those other effects. I can't find a reference, but there's a good phrase that talked about how for every new innovation that comes out and is going to "completely replace X", the actual equilibrium always turns into a hybrid of the legacy systems and the new systems. Much like we've seen with Bitcoin. So at least at this point, I find your argument disingenuous, because it doesn't take into effect the interplay of the systems.

borland 6y ago
Let's all agree that yes, it's complicated and that Bitcoin interacts with fiat currency, and that SOME of bitcoin's energy waste could be attributed to external factors. That still leaves us with bitcoin being an environmental disaster and a net loss for humanity, apart from the few people who are benefitting from the pyramid scheme right now; Thus, changing none of the arguments against it.
- wsinks 6y ago
  Yes, I'm in agreement with you.

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

> (including things like burning gasoline and jet fuel to move paper and metal for shredding/melting.) In 2021, most transactions aren't made with paper cash and metal coins. It doesn't matter, though, because Bitcoin certainly isn't replacing traditional systems. The waste of Bitcoin is additive on top of any existing energy usage. Recent estimates compare the energy cost of a single Bitcoin transaction to around 700,000 credit card transactions, all things considered. ( https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ ) Notably, traditional transactions only get more efficient as our datacenters become faster and more energy efficient. Meanwhile, Bitcoin continues to consume ever-increasing amounts of energy while the number of supported transactions stays the same.

wsinks 6y ago

I know I just replied, but I just thought of something I hadn't thought of. How many of these Bitcoin miners are using their mining rigs as heaters? I'd be more stoked on it then. There was a Dutch company I knew that was using a distributed protocol to combine data computation in people's homes and have the heat be an actual dependable byproduct. I hope they're doing well. Such a cool idea.

ncmncm 6y ago
All of such heating that occurs instead of using the power to drive a heat pump is at a net cost to society. Even in Iceland, generating power instead of piping the heat directly to the building is an expense.