3 ms·
Just virtue signaling. If bitcoin replaces gold it would be a net win for the environment. And btc uses mostly renewables and excess energy. Also there are m
by trident5000 6y ago
Just virtue signaling. If bitcoin replaces gold it would be a net win for the environment. And btc uses mostly renewables and excess energy. Also there are many other random applications that use more energy than btc like HFT, gaming, video rendering, but we dont persecute individual liberty, expression, or advancement. A society moving forward simply takes more energy. The solution is to tackle the entire energy space, not persecute energy users which is a band-aid "solution" and counter to a progressive society.
- mlyle 6y ago... All being equal, it probably isn't good to build a system of distributed ledger whose entire trustworthiness and participation depends upon "proof of energy usage". Pushing one transaction through Bitcoin effectively uses about half the electricity that a typical US household uses in a month.
- trident5000 6y agoGoing to need you to walk me through that calculation you came up with.
- mlyle 6y agoBitcoin network uses about 120 TWh of electricity per year. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 It accomplishes about 7 TPS. 120 terawatts * hours / 1 year * 1 second / 7 in kilowatt hours = 543 kilowatts * hours. Average US household electricity usage is about 877 kWh per month https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3 Of course, increasing Bitcoin prices will likely increase the amount of resources dedicated to mining, too...
- rkagerer 6y agoI was skeptical too, but approached it from this end: At the moment, one Bitcoin transaction costs me about $10 in network fees. The party pushing it through gets, say, another $90 or so in reward for mining it (6.25 BTC reward per block ÷ 3500 transactions per block × $50000 per BTC).