3 ms·
There are a lot of arguments against Bitcoin, and the energy consumption argument has always struck me as the most asinine. It's an anchoring fallacy rooted in
by madrox 6y ago
There are a lot of arguments against Bitcoin, and the energy consumption argument has always struck me as the most asinine. It's an anchoring fallacy rooted in the fact that bitcoin's energy consumption is easy to estimate with a fair amount of confidence. However, because Bitcoin is easy and other industries are hard, we do not scrutinize the utility of any other industry in this way, though data suggests global video gaming is a comparable energy hog[1][2]. We have no way of estimating the energy consumption of the finance industry, and I wouldn't trust any attempt. Bitcoin is being compared to countries instead of other industries because it looks alarming, but many global industries that rely on energy look like this.
I hate pointing this out, because I get misconstrued as a Bitcoin supporter. I hold no Bitcoin, and I never have because of other principles. However, criticisms such as this one don't create constructive conversation, in my experience. Unless we want to start regulating what you can and cannot use energy for in your home, there's no point to thinking this way. The fossil fuel angle, in my mind, is simply a sign that we need to get off fossil fuels, Bitcoin or not.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257768246_Electricity_consumption_and_energy_savings_potential_of_video_game_consoles_in_the_United_States https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257768246_Electrici... - US energy consumption by video game consoles in the US alone was 16 TWh in 2010
[2] https://grist.org/article/video-games-consume-more-electricity-than-25-power-plants-can-produce/ https://grist.org/article/video-games-consume-more-electrici... - Globally, PC gaming (not console gaming) was estimated at 75 TWh in 2018
- joshspankit 6y agoI might be a little rusty, but don’t we know exactly how much calculating is being done (measured in M/G/T/P/E hashes/second)? And don’t we also have fairly accurate measurement of how much electricity it takes to calculate those hashes (assuming everyone is using this year’s tech)?
- madrox 6y agoWe do, which is why it's so attractive to look at Bitcoin's energy consumption. The result is a big number, but we don't know how bad this number actually is because we don't have fairly accurate measurements of any other industry to compare it to. We can't answer the first questions that arise from this kind of analysis. For example, is Bitcoin the most energy intense industry, or is it really just because computing in general is energy intense? What percentage of overall computing is taken up by bitcoin? Are there other computing segments that are worse? We can't answer these questions very well, and even if we could the only way to regulate it would be to limit what we can do with our computers. Last I checked, the HN community hated such suggestions.
- joshspankit 6y agoI have to admit: I had never considered the fact that we can’t measure most other energy consumption as accurately. Seems to me we really have to be having that conversation instead of just “it uses so much”.
- civilized 6y agoWe can compare transaction fees. Bitcoin transaction fees average $12 right now, which IIRC is comparable to bank fees for wiring cash. (Of course with bank wires you might have more security, at least in the developed world...)
- vesinisa 6y agoIt makes very much sense to criticize Bitcoin for its energy usage, I really don't understand your angle, and how that would asinine. "Mining" Bitcoin is literally competing to waste energy. Even if you want to ignore the fossil fuel angle, as a civilization energy for us is still of pivotal importance - to like build stuff, live and do amazing stuff like explore another planets. If the price of Bitcoin continues to climb, at which point does it become not sensible to spend more energy mining it? When every inch of our planet has been filled with a nuclear plant or a solar panel? Because rising price will perpetually mean mining more will break a profit. If you can make a profit from wasting energy, markets will reward you for that indefinitely and the entire society will reconfigure around Bitcoin mining. No, that makes no sense. I don't think anybody wants to regulate how private homes or businesses use their electricity, but I just find the fundamental proposal of Bitcoin as untenable. Criticizing it does not have ulterior motive apart from trying to make people see how silly it appears to me personally.