5 ms·

Not to take a side in this fight but i find the counter argument about the environmental cost of regular currencies interesting. How much co2 is emitted in the

Not to take a side in this fight but i find the counter argument about the environmental cost of regular currencies interesting. How much co2 is emitted in the clearing of dollar transactions vs the clearing of bitcoin for example. That’s a whole lot of data centres. I’m not persuaded that we can put costs like legal (or even military) protection under just the dollar column - if you steal my $CO2COIN i can leverage the legal system to pursue you.

asah 6y ago
not to mention the humans involved in clearing dollar transactions...
namdnay 6y ago
> How much co2 is emitted in the clearing of dollar transactions vs the clearing of bitcoin for example. That’s a whole lot of data centres. About 40000 times less I think? That's the figure I saw for a SEPA transfer or Mastercard transaction vs the bitcoin equivalent
- patrickaljord 6y ago
  The dollar is backed by the petro-dollar, the fact that Saudi Arabia and friends only accept dollars when selling oil is one of the reason the dollar is strong. When you factor in that the US military protects the petro-dollar while at the same time being the biggest consumer on earth of oil, it starts adding up. Europe and therefore the Euro is also protected by the US army. All of a sudden, your fiat's energy consumption is probably much bigger than bitcoin ever will be.
  - DennisP 6y ago
    It's not like we'd stop protecting our oil supply if we converted to Bitcoin. We'd still need oil for cars and planes and so on. If we manage to stop using oil, we won't need the military to protect it anymore, even if we haven't converted to Bitcoin. So I don't think we can lay the military's oil consumption at fiat's feet.
    - tenuousemphasis 6y ago
      It has nothing to do with protecting the oil supply. The U.S. military is deployed to ensure that oil producing countries don't go and sell their oil for anything other than dollars. Protecting the oil is completely orthogonal.
  - namdnay 6y ago
    The dollar being strong or not doesn't change the fact that a transaction in any currency is several orders of magnitude more energy-efficient than with bitcoin.
- notRobot 6y ago
  Source?
jki275 6y ago
The vast majority of BTC mining is done in facilities that are colocated with hydro dams in China, so the CO2 emission is not what you might expect just hearing the number of KWH being used.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  You think China is in the habit of building hydroelectric plants in places where no one needs electricity? Also, a minute with Wikipedia and a calculator will show you that transmission losses for the longest possible straight distance in China are <5%.
  - jki275 6y ago
    I think that the bitcoin mining companies that run in China have a pretty good handle on how to get very low cost electricity, and hydro doesn't produce the CO2 emissions you're so concerned about. So what's your point?
    - IshKebab 6y ago
      His point is that crypto mining isn't using some carbon neutral electricity that was just lying around unused. If crypto minors didn't exist that hydro electricity would have been used for something useful. So by mining crypto unless you actually build extra hydro power stations for them you are 100% adding to CO2 emissions.
      - jki275 6y ago
        I don't think that point is accurate. At best, it makes a ton of assumptions that aren't warranted.
        cbzbc 6y ago
        As does the statement that because hydro dams are being used mining is not doing environmental damage.
tobasq 6y ago
It is estimated that the carbon footprint of a single Bitcoin transaction is 660 lbs of CO2 (not a typo), equivalent to that of 670,000 VISA transactions.

asah 6y ago

not to mention the humans involved in clearing dollar transactions...

namdnay 6y ago

> How much co2 is emitted in the clearing of dollar transactions vs the clearing of bitcoin for example. That’s a whole lot of data centres. About 40000 times less I think? That's the figure I saw for a SEPA transfer or Mastercard transaction vs the bitcoin equivalent

patrickaljord 6y ago
The dollar is backed by the petro-dollar, the fact that Saudi Arabia and friends only accept dollars when selling oil is one of the reason the dollar is strong. When you factor in that the US military protects the petro-dollar while at the same time being the biggest consumer on earth of oil, it starts adding up. Europe and therefore the Euro is also protected by the US army. All of a sudden, your fiat's energy consumption is probably much bigger than bitcoin ever will be.
- DennisP 6y ago
  It's not like we'd stop protecting our oil supply if we converted to Bitcoin. We'd still need oil for cars and planes and so on. If we manage to stop using oil, we won't need the military to protect it anymore, even if we haven't converted to Bitcoin. So I don't think we can lay the military's oil consumption at fiat's feet.
  - tenuousemphasis 6y ago
    It has nothing to do with protecting the oil supply. The U.S. military is deployed to ensure that oil producing countries don't go and sell their oil for anything other than dollars. Protecting the oil is completely orthogonal.
- namdnay 6y ago
  The dollar being strong or not doesn't change the fact that a transaction in any currency is several orders of magnitude more energy-efficient than with bitcoin.
notRobot 6y ago
Source?

jki275 6y ago

The vast majority of BTC mining is done in facilities that are colocated with hydro dams in China, so the CO2 emission is not what you might expect just hearing the number of KWH being used.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
You think China is in the habit of building hydroelectric plants in places where no one needs electricity? Also, a minute with Wikipedia and a calculator will show you that transmission losses for the longest possible straight distance in China are <5%.
- jki275 6y ago
  I think that the bitcoin mining companies that run in China have a pretty good handle on how to get very low cost electricity, and hydro doesn't produce the CO2 emissions you're so concerned about. So what's your point?
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    His point is that crypto mining isn't using some carbon neutral electricity that was just lying around unused. If crypto minors didn't exist that hydro electricity would have been used for something useful. So by mining crypto unless you actually build extra hydro power stations for them you are 100% adding to CO2 emissions.
    - jki275 6y ago
      I don't think that point is accurate. At best, it makes a ton of assumptions that aren't warranted.
      - cbzbc 6y ago
        As does the statement that because hydro dams are being used mining is not doing environmental damage.

tobasq 6y ago

It is estimated that the carbon footprint of a single Bitcoin transaction is 660 lbs of CO2 (not a typo), equivalent to that of 670,000 VISA transactions.