5 ms·

You could make up some fear mongering "study" about almost every energy using topic. AI and video rendering for instance which is often for some marginal purpo

You could make up some fear mongering "study" about almost every energy using topic. AI and video rendering for instance which is often for some marginal purpose. Or heating pools, idle electronics, big homes with AC, leisure travel, all the useless crap bought and manufactured in China with dirty coal, etc.

jf22 6y ago
Right, and all those things are harmful to the planet.
- trident5000 6y ago
  Many I just listed use more energy than btc...so yes, they are.
  - jf22 6y ago
    So what are you saying, that because other things are also bad we can't have a discussion how bad one thing is?
    - trident5000 6y ago
      Im saying you were being sarcastic thereby making the claim that those things are not harmful, and they are. Im not sure whats confusing here.
      - jf22 6y ago
        I was not being sarcastic. Those things are harmful.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    You mentioned five things, all of which are frequently focused on as contributors to global climate change. Well, I'm not sure I've seen "AI and video rendering" mentioned in that context, but I'm also not sure that they use more power than crypto mining. But definitely I've seen articles addressing idle electronics[0], big homes with AC[1], leisure travel[2], and "all the useless crap bought and manufactured in China with dirty coal"[3]. So it shouldn't be surprising that crypto mining is added to the list. Any and all heavy users of energy are contributing to climate change in some way, and the cost/benefit analysis for some are more justifiable than others. Food production is energy-hungry, but without it, people die. Nobody would die if crypto mining ended tomorrow. Thanks to government standards, idle electronics are better now than they were, and will continue to improve in the future. Big homes with A/C is a largely American problem without anything to really address it yet, but there has been a lot of attention focused on the issue already. In general a bad thing is bad whether there are worse things or not. Crypto mining is a big drain on energy resources with very little benefit, or with benefit to very few people, and it doesn't have to the biggest drain, or benefit the fewest number of people the least for that to be true. 0. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/keep-your-devices-wasting-energy-and-money https://www.nrdc.org/stories/keep-your-devices-wasting-energ... 1. https://www.ajc.com/news/local/are-air-conditioners-slowly-killing/CPdQohTaTmPPITuhSgjtWK/ https://www.ajc.com/news/local/are-air-conditioners-slowly-k... 2. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/25/8881364/greta-thunberg-climate-change-flying-airline https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/25/8881364/greta-th... 3. https://phys.org/news/2017-11-impact-climate-china-substantial-losses.html https://phys.org/news/2017-11-impact-climate-china-substanti...
    - effie 6y ago
      By endlessly arguing about regulating minor consumer/production classes the attention span and opportunities for effective change diminish. The regulation should happen for the big polluters first, i.e. coal plants, transport ships. When that is done and the problem is largely fixed, you can spend your time arguing about cryptocurrency taxation, why not. It makes no sense, in the current situation, to discuss 10000 small energy consumers and appropriate pollution tax for all of them. We need to fix the damn energy production first.
- jtkgkgnyn 6y ago
  Human life in general is harmful to the planet. So what are you saying?
  - jf22 6y ago
    I don't understand why you would feel as though this reply says anything. There is always something worse or has alternative consequences.
  - unfamiliar 6y ago
    That it's important to measure the impact of each accurately so that we can make sensible decisions about where to curtail said damages.
- pseudo0 6y ago
  Making the study about bitcoin in particular seems like a clickbaity way of getting attention, when the core issue seems to be dirty power generation. Bitcoin makes up a tiny fraction of non-essential American power usage, so focusing on it in particular just seems like jumping on the "Bitcoin is terrible for the environment" bandwagon. Articles on this topic seem to pop up every couple weeks on HN lately, and they generally aren't novel or interesting.
cecja 6y ago
STOP using whataboutism as an argument for crypto it's just pathetic at this moment.
GavinMcG 6y ago
Are you saying we shouldn't understand the consequences of what we do? It's useful to know that BTC has major externalities because it allows us to make a rational choice. We could make different choices about all the things you listed, too. Or not! But you seem to be actually arguing for willful blindness, here.
- trident5000 6y ago
  aRE yOu SayInG tHat No Im actually not. You said that. Pointing out that you can cherry pick and micro-analyze anything.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    It was a question. You seemed to be implying that any such study would be "fear-mongering" (your words). That suggests that you think the studies wouldn't be useful and that we shouldn't do them. Your playground rhetoric isn't helpful.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- effie 6y ago
  You are misunderstanding the point. Of course, cryptocurrencies have externalities and it is good to quantify them. In that respect, the paper could be useful. The objection is, this paper makes no attempt to analyze and show cryptocurrencies are worth attention any more than other 1000 consumer classes. It just states "crypto has externalities", does not weight them properly in perspective and advocates for "more research" and "lets regulate". That is irresponsible. Regulation should happen at the biggest most important polluters such as transport and coal plants.
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    It's a single paper. It responsibly limits itself to a manageable conclusion and responsibly points out where there are still open questions. Can you point out where in the paper the authors leap to "let's regulate" as you put it? There seems to be one small section about regulation, but it doesn't exactly advocate for it: it describes how their pricing research could be used in regulation. It describes challenges in regulating. But it responsibly avoids making moral/policy claims.

jf22 6y ago

Right, and all those things are harmful to the planet.

trident5000 6y ago
Many I just listed use more energy than btc...so yes, they are.
- jf22 6y ago
  So what are you saying, that because other things are also bad we can't have a discussion how bad one thing is?
  - trident5000 6y ago
    Im saying you were being sarcastic thereby making the claim that those things are not harmful, and they are. Im not sure whats confusing here.
    - jf22 6y ago
      I was not being sarcastic. Those things are harmful.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  You mentioned five things, all of which are frequently focused on as contributors to global climate change. Well, I'm not sure I've seen "AI and video rendering" mentioned in that context, but I'm also not sure that they use more power than crypto mining. But definitely I've seen articles addressing idle electronics[0], big homes with AC[1], leisure travel[2], and "all the useless crap bought and manufactured in China with dirty coal"[3]. So it shouldn't be surprising that crypto mining is added to the list. Any and all heavy users of energy are contributing to climate change in some way, and the cost/benefit analysis for some are more justifiable than others. Food production is energy-hungry, but without it, people die. Nobody would die if crypto mining ended tomorrow. Thanks to government standards, idle electronics are better now than they were, and will continue to improve in the future. Big homes with A/C is a largely American problem without anything to really address it yet, but there has been a lot of attention focused on the issue already. In general a bad thing is bad whether there are worse things or not. Crypto mining is a big drain on energy resources with very little benefit, or with benefit to very few people, and it doesn't have to the biggest drain, or benefit the fewest number of people the least for that to be true. 0. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/keep-your-devices-wasting-energy-and-money https://www.nrdc.org/stories/keep-your-devices-wasting-energ... 1. https://www.ajc.com/news/local/are-air-conditioners-slowly-killing/CPdQohTaTmPPITuhSgjtWK/ https://www.ajc.com/news/local/are-air-conditioners-slowly-k... 2. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/25/8881364/greta-thunberg-climate-change-flying-airline https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/7/25/8881364/greta-th... 3. https://phys.org/news/2017-11-impact-climate-china-substantial-losses.html https://phys.org/news/2017-11-impact-climate-china-substanti...
  - effie 6y ago
    By endlessly arguing about regulating minor consumer/production classes the attention span and opportunities for effective change diminish. The regulation should happen for the big polluters first, i.e. coal plants, transport ships. When that is done and the problem is largely fixed, you can spend your time arguing about cryptocurrency taxation, why not. It makes no sense, in the current situation, to discuss 10000 small energy consumers and appropriate pollution tax for all of them. We need to fix the damn energy production first.
jtkgkgnyn 6y ago
Human life in general is harmful to the planet. So what are you saying?
- jf22 6y ago
  I don't understand why you would feel as though this reply says anything. There is always something worse or has alternative consequences.
- unfamiliar 6y ago
  That it's important to measure the impact of each accurately so that we can make sensible decisions about where to curtail said damages.
pseudo0 6y ago
Making the study about bitcoin in particular seems like a clickbaity way of getting attention, when the core issue seems to be dirty power generation. Bitcoin makes up a tiny fraction of non-essential American power usage, so focusing on it in particular just seems like jumping on the "Bitcoin is terrible for the environment" bandwagon. Articles on this topic seem to pop up every couple weeks on HN lately, and they generally aren't novel or interesting.

cecja 6y ago

STOP using whataboutism as an argument for crypto it's just pathetic at this moment.

GavinMcG 6y ago

Are you saying we shouldn't understand the consequences of what we do? It's useful to know that BTC has major externalities because it allows us to make a rational choice. We could make different choices about all the things you listed, too. Or not! But you seem to be actually arguing for willful blindness, here.

trident5000 6y ago
aRE yOu SayInG tHat No Im actually not. You said that. Pointing out that you can cherry pick and micro-analyze anything.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  It was a question. You seemed to be implying that any such study would be "fear-mongering" (your words). That suggests that you think the studies wouldn't be useful and that we shouldn't do them. Your playground rhetoric isn't helpful.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
effie 6y ago
You are misunderstanding the point. Of course, cryptocurrencies have externalities and it is good to quantify them. In that respect, the paper could be useful. The objection is, this paper makes no attempt to analyze and show cryptocurrencies are worth attention any more than other 1000 consumer classes. It just states "crypto has externalities", does not weight them properly in perspective and advocates for "more research" and "lets regulate". That is irresponsible. Regulation should happen at the biggest most important polluters such as transport and coal plants.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  It's a single paper. It responsibly limits itself to a manageable conclusion and responsibly points out where there are still open questions. Can you point out where in the paper the authors leap to "let's regulate" as you put it? There seems to be one small section about regulation, but it doesn't exactly advocate for it: it describes how their pricing research could be used in regulation. It describes challenges in regulating. But it responsibly avoids making moral/policy claims.