3 ms·

That's not a counterpoint if those countries also consume an insignificant amount of energy. Isn't a rebuttal different than a deflection? Anyway half - 3/4th

That's not a counterpoint if those countries also consume an insignificant amount of energy. Isn't a rebuttal different than a deflection? Anyway half - 3/4ths of bitcoin mining is using clean energy that wasn't going to be used for anything else, or a sustainability solution for energy that was going to be used as pollution.

tsimionescu 6y ago
> Anyway half - 3/4ths of bitcoin mining is using clean energy that wasn't going to be used for anything else While the clean energy claim may be true, why do you claim it wouldn't have been used for anything else?
- vmception 6y ago
  because a lot of energy is not utilized if it will be lost in transit. they don't send it and there is extra capacity on site and from the specific source of energy. there are gigawatts of energy that can only be used at the source, which has never had a use until the mining machines showed up.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Then why not stop producing it, instead of using it on Bitcoin? Even 'clean' energy production has environmental costs, from environment destruction for hydro to maintenance/production costs for solar and wind.
    - millstone 6y ago
      Excess electricity can be a real problem, and is getting worse with renewables. But surplus energy would be better used to desalinate seawater, or produce hydrogen through electrolysis, or storage.
      - vmception 6y ago
        Except the plants are not built at the sea and desalination is not a clean process. Or with electrolysis or storage you need to generate it and transport it to where it can be used, getting you back to square one because nobody is doing that because it is uneconomical. Whereas mining is not because it can be all done on site in remote locations and doesn't even need great internet. High latency, spotty internet is good enough for crypto mining. We know what the ideals are: no pollution and infinite energy, or no pollution and less energy use. Thats not going to happen, and crypto wasn’t part of those 50 year old models, yet it is accomplishing a lot of those ideals and people choose not to respect its existence as it alters their worldview.
    - vmception 6y ago
      Now that we've moved the goal posts, is it still more of an environmental cost than just imagining it was fossil fuels or energy that being pulled away from other use cases? The answer to your question depends on which power source we are referring to. Where Bitcoin is a sustainability solution, it is reducing waste by products which were already being produced and now are not being produced because they are used for energy. Bitcoin is a multi-billion industry whether you respect its existence or not, your arguments will simply have to get more nuanced to have a real conversation about what's happening. Organizations that know better are intentionally omitting the source of energy, in their discussion about the amount of energy. Don't fall for it.

tsimionescu 6y ago

> Anyway half - 3/4ths of bitcoin mining is using clean energy that wasn't going to be used for anything else While the clean energy claim may be true, why do you claim it wouldn't have been used for anything else?

vmception 6y ago
because a lot of energy is not utilized if it will be lost in transit. they don't send it and there is extra capacity on site and from the specific source of energy. there are gigawatts of energy that can only be used at the source, which has never had a use until the mining machines showed up.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Then why not stop producing it, instead of using it on Bitcoin? Even 'clean' energy production has environmental costs, from environment destruction for hydro to maintenance/production costs for solar and wind.
  - millstone 6y ago
    Excess electricity can be a real problem, and is getting worse with renewables. But surplus energy would be better used to desalinate seawater, or produce hydrogen through electrolysis, or storage.
    - vmception 6y ago
      Except the plants are not built at the sea and desalination is not a clean process. Or with electrolysis or storage you need to generate it and transport it to where it can be used, getting you back to square one because nobody is doing that because it is uneconomical. Whereas mining is not because it can be all done on site in remote locations and doesn't even need great internet. High latency, spotty internet is good enough for crypto mining. We know what the ideals are: no pollution and infinite energy, or no pollution and less energy use. Thats not going to happen, and crypto wasn’t part of those 50 year old models, yet it is accomplishing a lot of those ideals and people choose not to respect its existence as it alters their worldview.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Now that we've moved the goal posts, is it still more of an environmental cost than just imagining it was fossil fuels or energy that being pulled away from other use cases? The answer to your question depends on which power source we are referring to. Where Bitcoin is a sustainability solution, it is reducing waste by products which were already being produced and now are not being produced because they are used for energy. Bitcoin is a multi-billion industry whether you respect its existence or not, your arguments will simply have to get more nuanced to have a real conversation about what's happening. Organizations that know better are intentionally omitting the source of energy, in their discussion about the amount of energy. Don't fall for it.