5 ms·

If you're going to question the validity of an assertion please provide more than just a counterassertion.

gitrog 6y ago
You could say that to GP who just dismissed a published study without actually taking on any of the claims made therein.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  They questioned the methodology specifically. So it's not just an assertion.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    ...of a published study. The only reason people are defending GP now is because the subject is BTC.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      Just because it's a published study does not mean it's infallible. Please see my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26342411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26342411
      - tekknik 6y ago
        Your counter is just as flawed as you have no way to verify any miners are using renewables. Power transmission is a thing (California does it) and if we weren’t using the power to mine BTC it could be used to power other things. Again, people are only arguing for BTC on this site because it’s hacker news, nothing else.
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        > Your counter is just as flawed as you have no way to verify any miners are using renewables. Then any "published study" on this topic is automatically going to be flawed as well?
        tekknik 6y ago
        More like since renewables are not commonplace and it costs money to move its easier to believe they are not using renewables.
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        You can of course believe whatever seems easy to you, but you do realize that I linked to a published study that says miners are using renewables far more than the US does on average, don't you?
        tekknik 6y ago
        32% of miners use renewables. That’s not even a majority amongst miners.
tomxor 6y ago
Onus probandi Otherwise nonsense claims can easily destroy the discussion by DoSing the opposition.
danpalmer 6y ago
Is the responsibility not on the person making the assertion to provide evidence?
Marciplan 6y ago
Isn’t that exactly what the original comment was doing?
jorvi 6y ago
That's not how it works. If I claim the moon is made of cheese and someone says he doesn't believe me, the onus is on me to prove it is, not on them that it isn't.
- trident5000 6y ago
  The burden is on both people making statements/claims.
crumbshot 6y ago
Good point, thanks - I'm using CCAF's 3rd Global Cryptoasset Benchmarking Study as the source for my assertion: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-finance/publications/3rd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking-study https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternati... Their research indicates that a minority of mining is done using renewable resources: > The survey findings estimate that on average 39% of proof-of-work mining is powered by renewable energy, primarily hydroelectric energy. It also specifically addresses this popular claim of mining being powered mostly by renewables: > China’s oversupply of hydroelectric energy during the rainy season has often been used as evidence in claims that a vast majority of mining is powered by environment-friendly power sources. While it is true that the Chinese government’s strategy to ensure energy self-sufficiency has led to the development of massive hydropower capacity, the same strategy has driven public investments in the construction of large-scale coal mines. Like hydroelectric power plants, these coal power plants often generate surpluses. It should not come as a surprise then that a significant share of hashers in the region equally report using both hydropower and coal energy to power their operations.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  The article seems to use the country average emissions per kWh for the US and China (it's hard to tell because the first reference is a 404, the other is 400+ pages, the final one is definitely country average numbers). A cursory Google search says the percentage of renewable energy in the US and China is ~11% and ~23% respectively. The disparity between that and an average of 39% for crypto mining specifically does not seem to be factored in.
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    I think you're right, they do note this as a limitation of their study due to insufficient data: > The great unanswered question faced when exploring cryptodamages is that while we can identify select geographic hotspots of production we currently do not know in the aggregate where the electricity used in cryptocurrency mining is physically produced. This is because we, like Krause and Tolaymat, do not know the physical locations of cryptocurrency miners, whether individuals, groups or aggregates in, say, a region or country. There is considerable evidence of concentration of mining operations in particular locations, typically where reliable electricity is cheaply available, though, precise data are lacking. In the US, perhaps the most well-known concentration is the Mid-Columbia Basin area in central and eastern Washington State, where cheap electricity is produced by hydropower along the Columbia River, however, mining in other US locations also occurs. There is also evidence of large mining camps in China. With time and emergent research there may be improved information about the amounts of electricity devoted to mining cryptocurrencies for particular locations or regions, but it is currently not available. It would be interesting to see the results of their analysis if recalculated using the more granular CCAF survey data.

You could say that to GP who just dismissed a published study without actually taking on any of the claims made therein.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
They questioned the methodology specifically. So it's not just an assertion.
- tekknik 6y ago
  ...of a published study. The only reason people are defending GP now is because the subject is BTC.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    Just because it's a published study does not mean it's infallible. Please see my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26342411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26342411
    - tekknik 6y ago
      Your counter is just as flawed as you have no way to verify any miners are using renewables. Power transmission is a thing (California does it) and if we weren’t using the power to mine BTC it could be used to power other things. Again, people are only arguing for BTC on this site because it’s hacker news, nothing else.
      - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        > Your counter is just as flawed as you have no way to verify any miners are using renewables. Then any "published study" on this topic is automatically going to be flawed as well?
        tekknik 6y ago
        More like since renewables are not commonplace and it costs money to move its easier to believe they are not using renewables.
        read_if_gay_ 6y ago
        You can of course believe whatever seems easy to you, but you do realize that I linked to a published study that says miners are using renewables far more than the US does on average, don't you?
        tekknik 6y ago
        32% of miners use renewables. That’s not even a majority amongst miners.

tomxor 6y ago

Onus probandi Otherwise nonsense claims can easily destroy the discussion by DoSing the opposition.

danpalmer 6y ago

Is the responsibility not on the person making the assertion to provide evidence?

Marciplan 6y ago

Isn’t that exactly what the original comment was doing?

jorvi 6y ago

That's not how it works. If I claim the moon is made of cheese and someone says he doesn't believe me, the onus is on me to prove it is, not on them that it isn't.

trident5000 6y ago
The burden is on both people making statements/claims.

crumbshot 6y ago

Good point, thanks - I'm using CCAF's 3rd Global Cryptoasset Benchmarking Study as the source for my assertion: https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternative-finance/publications/3rd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking-study https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternati... Their research indicates that a minority of mining is done using renewable resources: > The survey findings estimate that on average 39% of proof-of-work mining is powered by renewable energy, primarily hydroelectric energy. It also specifically addresses this popular claim of mining being powered mostly by renewables: > China’s oversupply of hydroelectric energy during the rainy season has often been used as evidence in claims that a vast majority of mining is powered by environment-friendly power sources. While it is true that the Chinese government’s strategy to ensure energy self-sufficiency has led to the development of massive hydropower capacity, the same strategy has driven public investments in the construction of large-scale coal mines. Like hydroelectric power plants, these coal power plants often generate surpluses. It should not come as a surprise then that a significant share of hashers in the region equally report using both hydropower and coal energy to power their operations.

read_if_gay_ 6y ago
The article seems to use the country average emissions per kWh for the US and China (it's hard to tell because the first reference is a 404, the other is 400+ pages, the final one is definitely country average numbers). A cursory Google search says the percentage of renewable energy in the US and China is ~11% and ~23% respectively. The disparity between that and an average of 39% for crypto mining specifically does not seem to be factored in.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  I think you're right, they do note this as a limitation of their study due to insufficient data: > The great unanswered question faced when exploring cryptodamages is that while we can identify select geographic hotspots of production we currently do not know in the aggregate where the electricity used in cryptocurrency mining is physically produced. This is because we, like Krause and Tolaymat, do not know the physical locations of cryptocurrency miners, whether individuals, groups or aggregates in, say, a region or country. There is considerable evidence of concentration of mining operations in particular locations, typically where reliable electricity is cheaply available, though, precise data are lacking. In the US, perhaps the most well-known concentration is the Mid-Columbia Basin area in central and eastern Washington State, where cheap electricity is produced by hydropower along the Columbia River, however, mining in other US locations also occurs. There is also evidence of large mining camps in China. With time and emergent research there may be improved information about the amounts of electricity devoted to mining cryptocurrencies for particular locations or regions, but it is currently not available. It would be interesting to see the results of their analysis if recalculated using the more granular CCAF survey data.