4 ms·

Bitcoin’s Climate Problem

13 points by adrian_mrd 6y ago

ddtaylor 6y ago
What's with the increasing regularity of reporting on this specific issue? The power usage of miners doesn't appear to have changed significantly, but the reporting of it seems to have increased by orders of magnitude in the last month.
- tomComb 6y ago
  But that is true of crypto and Bitcoin in general: it is going through another of its peaks, and with that comes a new wave of coverage - both good and bad.
rfd4sgmk8u 6y ago
Its an attack by bitcoin's enemies (and those that simply refuse to understand) to decredit it. We see this every so often, especially when there are big price jumps. Standard FUD attack. This cycle we are seeing: "Mining Concentration", "Based on Nothing" or "My Energy Usage". I think its a form of therapy for the nocoiners. They can be safe with their delusion that 'thank goodness I didn't get involved in such a shady business! its destroying the planet.', while tradfi continues to commodify their life, and central banks print away their life savings.
- ngokevin 6y ago
  That doesn't address the point raised, that's just ad hominem. You could just as well say people that defend bitcoin are just holders enjoying the pumps, claiming decentralization is the reason they hold it versus a likely real reason: wanting personally get rich and multiply their investments.
  - rfd4sgmk8u 6y ago
    Because the point is not valid. Its not worth addressing for the 7th time. Once you tire of the arguments year after year, and they just repeat, on loop -- you start to question the person that keeps raising it.
    - ngokevin 6y ago
      "they're wrong" is not very convincing. It's not the same person writing the articles, and I'm not the same person you've been responding to over and over.
  - aeternum 6y ago
    The article raises a false equivalence. The energy consumption of bitcoin is unrelated to the transaction rate. The hashrate is ultimately what secures Bitcoin and is completely independent of transactions processed. A better comparison would be the Bitcoin hashrate vs. the human life, electricity, and resources spent securing gold vaults and other physical assets.
asdev 6y ago
This issue has been beat to death. Everyone here loves to FUD crypto around here for some reason.
iameli 6y ago
I believe in the potential of cryptocurrency. I believe it to be the only thing with any chance of upending some particularly entrenched and harmful bits of the legacy financial system. Proof of Work is not necessary to achieve this. Many blockchains already exist without it. Ethereum will, in theory, be moving away from it within a couple of years. I'm scared that Bitcoin will never change or reduce its energy consumption despite the existence of eco-friendly alternatives. The definition of "Bitcoin" seems to be controlled by the miners, who will be the last ones that want to move away from an energy-intensive mining process. What can be done to stop this?
- rfd4sgmk8u 6y ago
  The only thing to stop is thinking that PoS is secure, or a valid alternative to Nakamoto Consensus. PoW is the only way (we know of, and possibly the optimum way) to secure a blockchain, and bootstrap value. Let it go. Energy will be used. Money will be made. You will be free.
  - iameli 6y ago
    What would it take to get you to change your mind about PoW alternatives? How many years of secure operation? How much value transfer? How large of an ecosystem? How much academic research into the mechanisms? Assume for the sake of argument that an alternative to Nakamoto Consensus is developed that meets your standards for security/decentralization and requires orders of magnitude less energy. Perhaps you're right and no such system exists today, but I'm not ready to accept that such a thing is physically impossible. Would you support hardforking Bitcoin to use the new system? My concern is that miners never will, no matter the merits of switching.
    - rfd4sgmk8u 6y ago
      Nothing will convince me against this. I believe it is a matter of simple physics. The fundamental argument is energy use provides the value and security. You can't have both less energy and more security. Its either universal computationally secure through Proof of Work, or its a shell game with big players. You cant remove energy from the equation. In general we should be looking for universal (math/physics, focusing on number theory/computation and energy usage) solutions, not human constructs like "bob has a lot of money so we listen to him." Do I trust the universe of math more than I trust the universe of humans? Yes.

13 points by adrian_mrd 6y ago

What's with the increasing regularity of reporting on this specific issue? The power usage of miners doesn't appear to have changed significantly, but the reporting of it seems to have increased by orders of magnitude in the last month.

tomComb 6y ago
But that is true of crypto and Bitcoin in general: it is going through another of its peaks, and with that comes a new wave of coverage - both good and bad.

rfd4sgmk8u 6y ago

Its an attack by bitcoin's enemies (and those that simply refuse to understand) to decredit it. We see this every so often, especially when there are big price jumps. Standard FUD attack. This cycle we are seeing: "Mining Concentration", "Based on Nothing" or "My Energy Usage". I think its a form of therapy for the nocoiners. They can be safe with their delusion that 'thank goodness I didn't get involved in such a shady business! its destroying the planet.', while tradfi continues to commodify their life, and central banks print away their life savings.

ngokevin 6y ago
That doesn't address the point raised, that's just ad hominem. You could just as well say people that defend bitcoin are just holders enjoying the pumps, claiming decentralization is the reason they hold it versus a likely real reason: wanting personally get rich and multiply their investments.
- rfd4sgmk8u 6y ago
  Because the point is not valid. Its not worth addressing for the 7th time. Once you tire of the arguments year after year, and they just repeat, on loop -- you start to question the person that keeps raising it.
  - ngokevin 6y ago
    "they're wrong" is not very convincing. It's not the same person writing the articles, and I'm not the same person you've been responding to over and over.
- aeternum 6y ago
  The article raises a false equivalence. The energy consumption of bitcoin is unrelated to the transaction rate. The hashrate is ultimately what secures Bitcoin and is completely independent of transactions processed. A better comparison would be the Bitcoin hashrate vs. the human life, electricity, and resources spent securing gold vaults and other physical assets.

asdev 6y ago

This issue has been beat to death. Everyone here loves to FUD crypto around here for some reason.

iameli 6y ago

I believe in the potential of cryptocurrency. I believe it to be the only thing with any chance of upending some particularly entrenched and harmful bits of the legacy financial system. Proof of Work is not necessary to achieve this. Many blockchains already exist without it. Ethereum will, in theory, be moving away from it within a couple of years. I'm scared that Bitcoin will never change or reduce its energy consumption despite the existence of eco-friendly alternatives. The definition of "Bitcoin" seems to be controlled by the miners, who will be the last ones that want to move away from an energy-intensive mining process. What can be done to stop this?

rfd4sgmk8u 6y ago
The only thing to stop is thinking that PoS is secure, or a valid alternative to Nakamoto Consensus. PoW is the only way (we know of, and possibly the optimum way) to secure a blockchain, and bootstrap value. Let it go. Energy will be used. Money will be made. You will be free.
- iameli 6y ago
  What would it take to get you to change your mind about PoW alternatives? How many years of secure operation? How much value transfer? How large of an ecosystem? How much academic research into the mechanisms? Assume for the sake of argument that an alternative to Nakamoto Consensus is developed that meets your standards for security/decentralization and requires orders of magnitude less energy. Perhaps you're right and no such system exists today, but I'm not ready to accept that such a thing is physically impossible. Would you support hardforking Bitcoin to use the new system? My concern is that miners never will, no matter the merits of switching.
  - rfd4sgmk8u 6y ago
    Nothing will convince me against this. I believe it is a matter of simple physics. The fundamental argument is energy use provides the value and security. You can't have both less energy and more security. Its either universal computationally secure through Proof of Work, or its a shell game with big players. You cant remove energy from the equation. In general we should be looking for universal (math/physics, focusing on number theory/computation and energy usage) solutions, not human constructs like "bob has a lot of money so we listen to him." Do I trust the universe of math more than I trust the universe of humans? Yes.