3 ms·

Because cryptocurrency mining is now one of the biggest contributors to climate change. It is killing the planet. It is a moral imperiative to shut it down by a

Because cryptocurrency mining is now one of the biggest contributors to climate change. It is killing the planet. It is a moral imperiative to shut it down by any means necessary.

amarshall 6y ago
Sure, but Nvidia is now selling cards specifically marketed towards miners (CMP). Their goal appears to be profit, little more.
kamranjon 6y ago
'One of the biggest contributors to climate change' - this is so far from being even remotely true
- _jal 6y ago
  Perhaps overstated, but it is a noticeable percentage of global electricity use spent on what is at best an enabling technology for the somewhat quixotic pursuits of a tiny fraction of the population. You should of course make your own judgments, but many people do not consider that a good tradeoff.
  - SXX 6y ago
    Keep in mind that bulk of crypto mining is quite centralized around the places with cheap elictricity so it's also mean cheapest source give highest advantage. Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes.
    - danhor 6y ago
      > Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes. While electricity transportation is an issue, it's not a huge one compared to the likes of storage and actually having something generating electricity. And, as it turns out, a lot of the mining farms just use coal (https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-more-renewable-energy https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-more-re...), with only around 40% of the energy coming from renewables. Even if they were only using renewables, it's still not zero carbon, since renewables also need to be built & since the total power consumption is increased, older coal plants might be used for longer. For something, where the economic value is comparatively low.
      - qqii 6y ago
        The link in your article to the primary source of the Cambridge University survey is unfortunately dead. The alternative metric given (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/) currency predicts 36.95 Million Tonnes of CO2. That's 0.1% of total CO2 emissions per year (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...) and 0.074% of global CO2eq (https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector). I'd probably agree that this is still pretty high for what amount to digital hording. On the other hand the seccond most popular blockchain Ethereum is estimated at half the energy consumption (https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption), has a plan to move to proof of stake and has a lot more economic value. The space is still new and bitcoin has first mover's advantage, name recognition and trust (most hashrate, most reviewed codebase, etc).
  - glogla 6y ago
    It's not quixotic, it's capitalism in it's purest form. They are literally destroying the planet for money and don't give a fuck.
  - qqii 6y ago
    I'd assume you're referring to this source (https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons) which gives 0.6% of total electricity production. Out of total energy production that's closer to 0.07% (~170,000 TWh in 2019 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio...).
gruez 6y ago
gp's point is that even though it might have a positive effect on climate change, the decision was likely not made for altruistic reasons. It's like the apple charger debacle from a few months ago.
kortex 6y ago
It's 121 TWh/y, world total is on the order of 160,000 TWh/y (primary energy supply), so crypto is less than 1 part per thousand. It's huge for pushing numbers around, but hardly "one of the biggest contributions". https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
- qqii 6y ago
  The source for the BBC article (https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons) even gives it as 0.48% of total electricity production and 0.55% of total electricity consumption. The graph it and the article shows us misleading as it only compares electricity and not total energy consumption.
qqii 6y ago
How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have some sources and numbers? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... puts the latest number at 173,340 TWh in 2019. This is an underestimate for the current value as energy consumption has been increasing. https://cbeci.org/ https://cbeci.org/ estimates the annualised consumption based on a 7 day moving average of 120.87 TWh for bitcoin. To be generous let's assume all cryptocurrency mining is double that for 241.74 TWh. That's only 0.14% of the total energy production, a lot of which comes from renuables (abundant cheap electricity means more profits for miners). Even if you assume the worst case of 1100 gCO2eq/kWh (https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn...) that's 265.914 Million Tonnes and https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-... shows the 2019 value at 36.44 Billion Tonnes That's a grave overestimate of 0.73% assuming the most pollution energy production and even then it doesn't even compare to any other sector: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
- Azeralthefallen 6y ago
  https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons Right here it says `20 863 TWh` which is nearly 10 times your worst case.
  - qqii 6y ago
    Note the difference between only electricity and other forms of energy, the value listed is total electricity production/consumption.
imtringued 6y ago
That's neither true nor the reason why Nvidia is doing this. What Nvidia is doing is like a dad making his kids share their sweets in a 50:50 ratio by taking advantage of the fact that one of his kids has a peanut allergy and the other has a walnut allergy and therefore 50% of the sweets contain peanuts and the other 50% walnuts.

Because cryptocurrency mining is now one of the biggest contributors to climate change. It is killing the planet. It is a moral imperiative to shut it down by any means necessary.

amarshall 6y ago

Sure, but Nvidia is now selling cards specifically marketed towards miners (CMP). Their goal appears to be profit, little more.

kamranjon 6y ago

'One of the biggest contributors to climate change' - this is so far from being even remotely true

_jal 6y ago
Perhaps overstated, but it is a noticeable percentage of global electricity use spent on what is at best an enabling technology for the somewhat quixotic pursuits of a tiny fraction of the population. You should of course make your own judgments, but many people do not consider that a good tradeoff.
- SXX 6y ago
  Keep in mind that bulk of crypto mining is quite centralized around the places with cheap elictricity so it's also mean cheapest source give highest advantage. Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes.
  - danhor 6y ago
    > Unlike actual people mining farms can be placed right next to power source so it's easier to use Nuclear / Wind / Solar / Hydro for such purposes. While electricity transportation is an issue, it's not a huge one compared to the likes of storage and actually having something generating electricity. And, as it turns out, a lot of the mining farms just use coal (https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-more-renewable-energy https://decrypt.co/43848/why-bitcoin-miners-dont-use-more-re...), with only around 40% of the energy coming from renewables. Even if they were only using renewables, it's still not zero carbon, since renewables also need to be built & since the total power consumption is increased, older coal plants might be used for longer. For something, where the economic value is comparatively low.
    - qqii 6y ago
      The link in your article to the primary source of the Cambridge University survey is unfortunately dead. The alternative metric given (https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/) currency predicts 36.95 Million Tonnes of CO2. That's 0.1% of total CO2 emissions per year (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re...) and 0.074% of global CO2eq (https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector). I'd probably agree that this is still pretty high for what amount to digital hording. On the other hand the seccond most popular blockchain Ethereum is estimated at half the energy consumption (https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/ethereum-energy-consumption), has a plan to move to proof of stake and has a lot more economic value. The space is still new and bitcoin has first mover's advantage, name recognition and trust (most hashrate, most reviewed codebase, etc).
- glogla 6y ago
  It's not quixotic, it's capitalism in it's purest form. They are literally destroying the planet for money and don't give a fuck.
- qqii 6y ago
  I'd assume you're referring to this source (https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons) which gives 0.6% of total electricity production. Out of total energy production that's closer to 0.07% (~170,000 TWh in 2019 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio...).

gruez 6y ago

gp's point is that even though it might have a positive effect on climate change, the decision was likely not made for altruistic reasons. It's like the apple charger debacle from a few months ago.

kortex 6y ago

It's 121 TWh/y, world total is on the order of 160,000 TWh/y (primary energy supply), so crypto is less than 1 part per thousand. It's huge for pushing numbers around, but hardly "one of the biggest contributions". https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

qqii 6y ago
The source for the BBC article (https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons) even gives it as 0.48% of total electricity production and 0.55% of total electricity consumption. The graph it and the article shows us misleading as it only compares electricity and not total energy consumption.

qqii 6y ago

How did you reach this conclusion? Do you have some sources and numbers? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitution https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-energy-substitutio... puts the latest number at 173,340 TWh in 2019. This is an underestimate for the current value as energy consumption has been increasing. https://cbeci.org/ https://cbeci.org/ estimates the annualised consumption based on a 7 day moving average of 120.87 TWh for bitcoin. To be generous let's assume all cryptocurrency mining is double that for 241.74 TWh. That's only 0.14% of the total energy production, a lot of which comes from renuables (abundant cheap electricity means more profits for miners). Even if you assume the worst case of 1100 gCO2eq/kWh (https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/post/postpn...) that's 265.914 Million Tonnes and https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-... shows the 2019 value at 36.44 Billion Tonnes That's a grave overestimate of 0.73% assuming the most pollution energy production and even then it doesn't even compare to any other sector: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector

Azeralthefallen 6y ago
https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons Right here it says `20 863 TWh` which is nearly 10 times your worst case.
- qqii 6y ago
  Note the difference between only electricity and other forms of energy, the value listed is total electricity production/consumption.

imtringued 6y ago

That's neither true nor the reason why Nvidia is doing this. What Nvidia is doing is like a dad making his kids share their sweets in a 50:50 ratio by taking advantage of the fact that one of his kids has a peanut allergy and the other has a walnut allergy and therefore 50% of the sweets contain peanuts and the other 50% walnuts.