5 ms·
I don't understand where all these "cryptocurrency vs the environment" posts are coming from recently. The core problem is energy use, no? Things using electric
by rkachowski 6y ago
I don't understand where all these "cryptocurrency vs the environment" posts are coming from recently. The core problem is energy use, no? Things using electricity - of which bitcoin is a huge one - are powered by environmentally damaging supplies.
I don't care about BTC at all, but if it were to be wiped out of existence tomorrow it would prevent further damage to the environment in exactly the same way that getting rid of plastic straws stopped plastic polluting the ocean.
- kristo 6y agoHuh? It would reduce a statistically significant amount of wasted energy. About as much as Ireland uses every year. Seems like a good goal to pursue, unless you’re a nihilist I guess
- cdiddy2 6y agoIf the energy was previously excess energy being thrown out, is using it for bitcoin actually increasing the energy footprint? Not saying all bitcoin mining is this way, but a portion of it is.
- p_l 6y agoIt would change economical pressures to push for things like building necessary transfer capacity, meanwhile you have BTC miners rescuing coal mine and coal power plant with new power purchase contract.
- newsclues 6y agoThere is the resource cost of crypto but also an opportunity cost. Given all the smart minds and money devoted to crypto research, could humanity not benefit from other projects?
- rkachowski 6y agoThat's a valid point, but that's an argument for "crypto is an expensive distraction from more worthy goals" rather than the original "computers used for a certain purpose are dangerous to the environment"
- throwaway20875 6y agoTalent invested in the crypto space pales in comparison to what we waste in finance. Our greatest minds are more likely to be arbitraging pork belly futures (PrIcE dIsCoVeRy!) than working on crypto.
- novaRom 6y agoA long-term impact caused by money laundering may be more significant.
- karpour 6y agoI don't think you realize the scale of it. Bitcoin is primarily used for speculation, the value is only based on more and more people buying in, and the energy usage is overwhelming. We are in dire need of reducing overall energy usage, but Bitcoin works against this in a huge way. And even if the energy comes from "sustainable sources", solar cells still need to be manufactured, the hardware that does nothing but mine and ends up as e-waste needs to be produced. The environmental impact doesn't end with energy usage. Overall, Bitcoin has an overall negative impact on society and environment, none of the claims that proponents made really hold up. There are many fundamental flaws that prevent Bitcoin from functioning as a practical currency, even is energy use wasn't an issue.
- gowld 6y ago> overall negative impact on society and environment is the description of almost everything in the developed world lifestyle, from animal meat to automobiles to overlarge houses.
- karpour 6y agoOh, so then it's ok to have a "currency" where one transaction uses 650kWh, 12000000 times more than a credit card transaction. I get all the benefits of crypto, but there are also massive downsides, the biggest being the energy/hardware usage, which has to rise constantly by design.
- DennisP 6y agoThat's only a downside for proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. Proof-of-stake eliminates almost all the energy consumption.
- karpour 6y agoI'd be excited about a widely adopted cryptocurrency that doesn't gobble up insane amounts of energy and needs an ever increasing amount of computing power to keep it from collapsing, but right now Bitcoin is using almost as much energy as Sweden, which isn't great.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y agoBTC is explicitly called out because people are essentially burning energy, Golgafrincham-style, solely to make money.