3 ms·

I am not commenting on the business strategy or battery technology Tesla is creating. However , you can’t deny that despite the fact that Bitcoin mines it’s co

I am not commenting on the business strategy or battery technology Tesla is creating. However , you can’t deny that despite the fact that Bitcoin mines it’s coins using an estimated 30% renewables , 60% is non -renewables and there is no incentive baked into the system to prevent massive increases of carbon emissions until 2140 when Bitcoin is estimated to be completely mined. All I’m saying is Bitcoin is a fantastic crypto-asset for creating wealth in a quasi-decentralized fashion. So yes, if you are looking to make money it’s a great place to start. But I can’t see anyone refuting the fact that Bitcoin will continually and at an increasing rate route massive quantities of carbon into our atmosphere. And/or waste incredible amounts of renewable energy which could have been used for better purposes. So I believe that it is logically contradictory of Tesla’s ethical branding to make that type of investment when there are plenty of Proof-of-stake based crypto’s out there with 10-100x energy-efficiency rates.

Melting_Harps 6y ago
What are you talking about? And what sources do you have to back up these claims? Here is the latest study we have from 2019 [0] that states its 74% renewable, and Jack Dorsey/Sqaure just put a $10 million bounty to make Bitcoin have an even lower carbon footprint [1], so what are you on about about lacking incentives? > But I can’t see anyone refuting the fact that Bitcoin will continually and at an increasing rate route massive quantities of carbon into our atmosphere. And/or waste incredible amounts of renewable energy which could have been used for better purposes. Given that Bitcoin has spurred on the creation of renewable energy sources this defies even the most basic observations, look at what Peter Theil invested in that brought more wind energy to Texas [2]. You are entirely misguided and I'm afraid your conclusions are based on non-existent and non-reality based arguments with little to no fact checking. I'm an environmentalist, I've spent most of my adult life involved in renewable and sustainable Ag, Farm to Table kitchens, learning gardens for children and the mentally disabled, and volunteered at non-profits helping put solar on the homes of low income families (Grid Alternatives), suffice to say I'm about as green as you can get and my carbon footprint is negative, and will likely remain so for the rest of my life given my involvement/investments in the hemp Industry. You are right that Bitcoin is very energy intensive, by design, but what you fail to understand is that it seeks to create and utilize renewable energy that otherwise would not or could not be used: Iceland is a hot spot for miners due to it cooling capacity as well as its large geo-thermal energy sources, my friend is doing his MSc in reneable and sustainable energy there and is proposing auzilary business models that are not possible due massive surplus of energy. Japan could easily be on track to do this as well, but I fear the Government may never allow this given how absurd they've been since Fukushima and now the Olympics under COVID. China makes use of the rainy season's excess hydro electric energy that would othereise overflow the grid, the US has a lots of mining near hydro, solar and wind energy sources because it is monetarily incentivized to do so in order to achieve profitability of a large budget/outlay. I think Denmark and Chile may be future hotspots as well due to their current excess renewable sources, but I don't discount remote areas of the world with waterfalls or large amounts of cheap land and ideal orientation for massive solar arrays: think Ivanpah in the Mojave desert but 10-1000x in size. > So I believe that it is logically contradictory of Tesla’s ethical branding to make that type of investment when there are plenty of Proof-of-stake based crypto’s out there with 10-100x energy-efficiency rates. > So I believe that it is logically contradictory of Tesla’s ethical branding to make that type of investment when there are plenty of Proof-of-stake based crypto’s out there with 10-100x energy-efficiency rates. None of which could even have the ROI potential that 2 months in BTC has, and that's the point: we are not appealing to their ethical or moral standards, those happen regardless of our community's stance, we are appealing to their software and hardware development to improve our network in a mutually beneficial manner. I've spent the last 3 years in or around Musk corps, I can assure you they have more than enough of Human Capital there to improve this network far beyond even our dreams, and my personal ambition to make BTC the first multi-planteary currency is all but certain now that Elon got involved and put it on Tesla's and soon SpaceX's balance sheet. Add Starlink to this equation and enabling Tesla purchases and his statement that Mars' economy will operate on a cryptocurrency this is all starts to make sense. If you want a more through explanation, I will just say I charged corps $250/hr for my consultation on this matter, and you are no different: but rest assured if these are your concerns you have no basis for your rebuttals. I'd also recommend researching a subject before you make baseless accusations that are easily refuted under basic scrutiny. 0: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/study-74-percent-of-bitcoin-mining-powered-with-renewable-energy https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/study-74-percent-of-bit... 1: https://insidebitcoins.com/news/jack-dorseys-square-launches-10m-initiative-to-reduce-bitcoins-carbon-footprint https://insidebitcoins.com/news/jack-dorseys-square-launches... 2: https://marketrealist.com/p/peter-thiel-bitcoin/ https://marketrealist.com/p/peter-thiel-bitcoin/
- newswasboring 6y ago
  > Here is the latest study we have from 2019 [0] that states its 74% renewable I may be slightly confused here about the term "renewable penetration" in the original report cited by your article[1]. They don't define what it actually means (maybe bad practice or maybe I'm just an outsider) and to me it feels like it means how many people on the grid have access to renewable power, not how much of the actual power being used is renewable. I can put a solar panel in all homes and thus get 100% renewable penetration but if it only provides enough energy to run a toaster, its not that significant, is it? In table 7 they mention Sichuan is 90% renewable energy penetration. Sichuan is the habitat of over 80 million people, I think they managed to convert 90% of their energy use to renewables, it would be easy to find a source on it. I did a lot of searching and I can't find a single citation. (btw, in the report the source is "Morgan Stanley Research 2018", which is completely useless as that company must generate a billion public/non-public documents a year and there is no way to tell which one these people read). [1] https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-mining-network-june-2019-fidelity-foreword.pdf https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-min...
- realitysballs 6y ago
  I agree with @newswasboring , all your sources seem to have an interest in bitcoin. My primary source for the facts given are based upon this study by Cambridge university : https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-ccaf-3rd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking-study.pdf https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-cc... Secondary source is here: https://youtu.be/lNGwQhXfB88 https://youtu.be/lNGwQhXfB88
  - Melting_Harps 6y ago
    > My primary source for the facts given are based upon this study by Cambridge university : I need time to sit down and get into the weeds with this, which I cannot until the weekend at the earliest. But just upon a preliminary look it's not just focusing on Bitcoin, but the entire 'Cryptoasset' ecosystem, which is disingenious when you're pointing the finger solely at Bitcoin as the waste of energy you are making it out to be. What other cryptocrrencies operate on is not our responsibility be it PoW or PoS or a hybrid or whatever else exists out there now. My focus is on Bitcoin and nothing else. > Secondary source is here: His overview of PoW is highly biased, and the argument is moot, even if those numbers from Cambridge are correct, because even by his own admission: 39% is an impressive number that most Industries cannot match. Fiat and all the ancillary systems to allow it to 'function' cannot even come close, and unlike Bitcoin bakks don't work after hours or on weekends, yet still relies on the same amount of energy consumption. This isn't 'what aboutism' it's comparing apples to apples and taking their figures at face value and contrasting it to the existing paradigm. I will reiterate my point: Bitcoin (the network) does consume lots of energy, much of it renewable (the figures vary apparently), but it remains the cleanest most effective, secure and resilient network in existence. And as I mentioned the enviormentalists amongst us are not satisfied with that figure: $10 million from Square is commendable but far too low to solve such an immense problem alone in the grand scheme of things, but us Bitcoiners are a resourceful bunch who can do great things with little to no money once we're determined, it's our real legacy. And now that we have institutional money coming in the billions on a dialy basis and the appreciation alone can and should spur on even more renewable energy sources. Tesla getting involved is a massive boon for many reasons. Also his understanding of Bitcoin is admittedly shallow, he only focuses on layer 1's supposed 7tx/sec but negates that riht now you can use layer 2 (LN) and do order of magnitude more tx/sec in real time for little to no cost, but most are not willing to hear this as it goes against their narratives. But, and I will admit: you need to understand that Bitcoin is not as agile as it once was now that it has matured, purposely so, and as an actual Free market it cannot force it's participants to adopt renewable energy, it can only incentivize it from competing Market forces and other market dynamics: which means this takes time. But ultimately, as I said before, I would be absolutely stunned if it doesn't break the 80% threshold; the panacea of it being 100% renewable or a failure is impossible in my opinion and no one should set that as the benchmark. But give it/us time, I personally would volunteer my services for free to set up and tie in the solar arrays for miners if given the opportunity because of what Bitcoin has given me already! I would love the opportunity to teach what I learned to the youth as well. Try finding that level of commitment in any of the large monoliths in the fiat World. And that is the key difference, we are adopting a sort of Kaizen system not seen outside of international supply chains, much less in finance, to determine our collective course of action. Also, Bitcoin is only ~12 years old: something to keep in mind when you make these criticisms. Go back to the creation of the original curries of the colonies which led to the first Central bank and the USD, and see how very un-credit worthy the US was after the Revolution. And that is the current super power with the World's reserve currency with it's American Century policies.

Melting_Harps 6y ago

What are you talking about? And what sources do you have to back up these claims? Here is the latest study we have from 2019 [0] that states its 74% renewable, and Jack Dorsey/Sqaure just put a $10 million bounty to make Bitcoin have an even lower carbon footprint [1], so what are you on about about lacking incentives? > But I can’t see anyone refuting the fact that Bitcoin will continually and at an increasing rate route massive quantities of carbon into our atmosphere. And/or waste incredible amounts of renewable energy which could have been used for better purposes. Given that Bitcoin has spurred on the creation of renewable energy sources this defies even the most basic observations, look at what Peter Theil invested in that brought more wind energy to Texas [2]. You are entirely misguided and I'm afraid your conclusions are based on non-existent and non-reality based arguments with little to no fact checking. I'm an environmentalist, I've spent most of my adult life involved in renewable and sustainable Ag, Farm to Table kitchens, learning gardens for children and the mentally disabled, and volunteered at non-profits helping put solar on the homes of low income families (Grid Alternatives), suffice to say I'm about as green as you can get and my carbon footprint is negative, and will likely remain so for the rest of my life given my involvement/investments in the hemp Industry. You are right that Bitcoin is very energy intensive, by design, but what you fail to understand is that it seeks to create and utilize renewable energy that otherwise would not or could not be used: Iceland is a hot spot for miners due to it cooling capacity as well as its large geo-thermal energy sources, my friend is doing his MSc in reneable and sustainable energy there and is proposing auzilary business models that are not possible due massive surplus of energy. Japan could easily be on track to do this as well, but I fear the Government may never allow this given how absurd they've been since Fukushima and now the Olympics under COVID. China makes use of the rainy season's excess hydro electric energy that would othereise overflow the grid, the US has a lots of mining near hydro, solar and wind energy sources because it is monetarily incentivized to do so in order to achieve profitability of a large budget/outlay. I think Denmark and Chile may be future hotspots as well due to their current excess renewable sources, but I don't discount remote areas of the world with waterfalls or large amounts of cheap land and ideal orientation for massive solar arrays: think Ivanpah in the Mojave desert but 10-1000x in size. > So I believe that it is logically contradictory of Tesla’s ethical branding to make that type of investment when there are plenty of Proof-of-stake based crypto’s out there with 10-100x energy-efficiency rates. > So I believe that it is logically contradictory of Tesla’s ethical branding to make that type of investment when there are plenty of Proof-of-stake based crypto’s out there with 10-100x energy-efficiency rates. None of which could even have the ROI potential that 2 months in BTC has, and that's the point: we are not appealing to their ethical or moral standards, those happen regardless of our community's stance, we are appealing to their software and hardware development to improve our network in a mutually beneficial manner. I've spent the last 3 years in or around Musk corps, I can assure you they have more than enough of Human Capital there to improve this network far beyond even our dreams, and my personal ambition to make BTC the first multi-planteary currency is all but certain now that Elon got involved and put it on Tesla's and soon SpaceX's balance sheet. Add Starlink to this equation and enabling Tesla purchases and his statement that Mars' economy will operate on a cryptocurrency this is all starts to make sense. If you want a more through explanation, I will just say I charged corps $250/hr for my consultation on this matter, and you are no different: but rest assured if these are your concerns you have no basis for your rebuttals. I'd also recommend researching a subject before you make baseless accusations that are easily refuted under basic scrutiny. 0: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/study-74-percent-of-bitcoin-mining-powered-with-renewable-energy https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/study-74-percent-of-bit... 1: https://insidebitcoins.com/news/jack-dorseys-square-launches-10m-initiative-to-reduce-bitcoins-carbon-footprint https://insidebitcoins.com/news/jack-dorseys-square-launches... 2: https://marketrealist.com/p/peter-thiel-bitcoin/ https://marketrealist.com/p/peter-thiel-bitcoin/

newswasboring 6y ago
> Here is the latest study we have from 2019 [0] that states its 74% renewable I may be slightly confused here about the term "renewable penetration" in the original report cited by your article[1]. They don't define what it actually means (maybe bad practice or maybe I'm just an outsider) and to me it feels like it means how many people on the grid have access to renewable power, not how much of the actual power being used is renewable. I can put a solar panel in all homes and thus get 100% renewable penetration but if it only provides enough energy to run a toaster, its not that significant, is it? In table 7 they mention Sichuan is 90% renewable energy penetration. Sichuan is the habitat of over 80 million people, I think they managed to convert 90% of their energy use to renewables, it would be easy to find a source on it. I did a lot of searching and I can't find a single citation. (btw, in the report the source is "Morgan Stanley Research 2018", which is completely useless as that company must generate a billion public/non-public documents a year and there is no way to tell which one these people read). [1] https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-mining-network-june-2019-fidelity-foreword.pdf https://coinshares.com/assets/resources/Research/bitcoin-min...
realitysballs 6y ago
I agree with @newswasboring , all your sources seem to have an interest in bitcoin. My primary source for the facts given are based upon this study by Cambridge university : https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-ccaf-3rd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking-study.pdf https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-cc... Secondary source is here: https://youtu.be/lNGwQhXfB88 https://youtu.be/lNGwQhXfB88
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > My primary source for the facts given are based upon this study by Cambridge university : I need time to sit down and get into the weeds with this, which I cannot until the weekend at the earliest. But just upon a preliminary look it's not just focusing on Bitcoin, but the entire 'Cryptoasset' ecosystem, which is disingenious when you're pointing the finger solely at Bitcoin as the waste of energy you are making it out to be. What other cryptocrrencies operate on is not our responsibility be it PoW or PoS or a hybrid or whatever else exists out there now. My focus is on Bitcoin and nothing else. > Secondary source is here: His overview of PoW is highly biased, and the argument is moot, even if those numbers from Cambridge are correct, because even by his own admission: 39% is an impressive number that most Industries cannot match. Fiat and all the ancillary systems to allow it to 'function' cannot even come close, and unlike Bitcoin bakks don't work after hours or on weekends, yet still relies on the same amount of energy consumption. This isn't 'what aboutism' it's comparing apples to apples and taking their figures at face value and contrasting it to the existing paradigm. I will reiterate my point: Bitcoin (the network) does consume lots of energy, much of it renewable (the figures vary apparently), but it remains the cleanest most effective, secure and resilient network in existence. And as I mentioned the enviormentalists amongst us are not satisfied with that figure: $10 million from Square is commendable but far too low to solve such an immense problem alone in the grand scheme of things, but us Bitcoiners are a resourceful bunch who can do great things with little to no money once we're determined, it's our real legacy. And now that we have institutional money coming in the billions on a dialy basis and the appreciation alone can and should spur on even more renewable energy sources. Tesla getting involved is a massive boon for many reasons. Also his understanding of Bitcoin is admittedly shallow, he only focuses on layer 1's supposed 7tx/sec but negates that riht now you can use layer 2 (LN) and do order of magnitude more tx/sec in real time for little to no cost, but most are not willing to hear this as it goes against their narratives. But, and I will admit: you need to understand that Bitcoin is not as agile as it once was now that it has matured, purposely so, and as an actual Free market it cannot force it's participants to adopt renewable energy, it can only incentivize it from competing Market forces and other market dynamics: which means this takes time. But ultimately, as I said before, I would be absolutely stunned if it doesn't break the 80% threshold; the panacea of it being 100% renewable or a failure is impossible in my opinion and no one should set that as the benchmark. But give it/us time, I personally would volunteer my services for free to set up and tie in the solar arrays for miners if given the opportunity because of what Bitcoin has given me already! I would love the opportunity to teach what I learned to the youth as well. Try finding that level of commitment in any of the large monoliths in the fiat World. And that is the key difference, we are adopting a sort of Kaizen system not seen outside of international supply chains, much less in finance, to determine our collective course of action. Also, Bitcoin is only ~12 years old: something to keep in mind when you make these criticisms. Go back to the creation of the original curries of the colonies which led to the first Central bank and the USD, and see how very un-credit worthy the US was after the Revolution. And that is the current super power with the World's reserve currency with it's American Century policies.