5 ms·

> Why are you handwaving away my concerns? Calm down. > Speaking of which, can you quantify what things pollute more? You're all over the comments trying to

by jude- 6y ago

> Why are you handwaving away my concerns? Calm down. > Speaking of which, can you quantify what things pollute more? You're all over the comments trying to pin the blame for CO2 emissions on the the existence of PoW cryptocurrencies. But if you stop and think about the problem for more than 5 seconds, you'll realize that it's the CO2 emissions, not cryptocurrencies, that are the problem. They were a problem before cryptocurrencies, and would continue to be a problem even if cryptocurrencies didn't exist. I think you'll find that many cryptocurrency fans are also green-energy fans, and would love to live in a world where all energy was 100% renewable. Like, no one here wants to burn more fossil fuels.

abduhl 6y ago
You didn’t answer their question. Can you quantify what things pollute more?
- jude- 6y ago
  Here, let me Google that for you. First, let's assume for a moment that this February 2021 CNBC source [1] is correct in that Bitcoin mining produces 36.94 megatons of CO2 per year. The original source the CNBC article cited can be found here: [3] (which currently pegs Bitcoin at 47.62 megatons/year). According to the EPA, the US economy alone produced 6,558 megatons of CO2 [2] in 2019 (i.e. under pre-COVID emissions). So, Bitcoin's CO2 annualized output as of February 2021 was 0.5% of the US economy's CO2 output from 2 years ago. This works out to be: * 5.6% of the US agricultural sector emissions, OR * 4.3% of US commercial and residential building emissions (heating, cooling, waste), OR * 2.4% of the US manufacturing industry, OR * 2.2% of all US electricity generation, OR * 1.9% of all US transportation emissions According to this article from 2016 published in Environmental Research Letters [4], the US could save a combined 110 megatons of CO2 emissions simply by using better building insulation, since it would reduce heating/cooling energy expenditure. That's about 3x the Bitcoin CO2 emission rate I quoted above. So, @SwimSwimHungry, I'll ask once again: why the outrage over cryptocurrencies? Can I expect you to have 3x the outrage over bad building insulation? [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bitcoin-btc-surge-renews-worries-about-its-massive-carbon-footprint.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bitcoin-btc-surge-renews-wor... [2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [3] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption [4] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034017 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/03...
  - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
    My response to you is quite simple. Unlike virtually every other technology that's been created (like computers, cars, smartphones, etc), Bitcoin simply exists in a form where the primary purpose is to waste energy, and the system inherently incentivizes it. Also, the issue of bad building insulation does not in any manner invalidate my concern with the growing problem of Bitcoin now and in the future. Bad building insulation can also be fixed relatively easily, and the incentive for a fix would be an energy cost savings to the property owner. Bitcoin is the exact opposite of this. In order for the network to remain secure, it must burn copious amounts of energy. That is my general outrage summarized there. And that doesn't even begin my issues pertaining to lack of user friendliness surrounding cryptocurrencies (not your keys, not your coins), how it suckers people into something they don't fully understand (people see $$$ and throw money at it without quantifying the proper risks - see the crashes from 2013 and 2017 and all the run on exchanges that left people empty handed), the absolutely awful existence of ransomware, and the constant tape painting with tethers (which by the way, we still can't get a proper audit on them and they are just about as opaque as the Fed is with regards to the Federal Reserve). I believe I've made my points at this juncture. We may have to simply agree to disagree otherwise.
    - jude- 6y ago
      > Bitcoin simply exists in a form where the primary purpose is to waste energy, That's just your moral judgement. The people who use and make a living off of Bitcoin certainly don't see it as a waste. > In order for the network to remain secure, it must burn copious amounts of energy. First, this does not preclude PoW from existing in a world powered 100% renewable energy. Second, I've already outlined a way to economically penalize PoW miners for using fossil fuels here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829269. Please do not make the mistake of believing that your (rightful) concerns about CO2 emissions from PoW are being overlooked, and please do not make the mistake of thinking that they cannot be addressed. PoW does not require burning fossil fuels to work.
      - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
- politician 6y ago
  Sealioning.
- pera 6y ago
  Last time I checked standby power consumption only in the US was an order of magnitude higher than Bitcoin mining all around the world, but it's hard to estimate the emissions of the latter due to its decentralised nature.
SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
Oh boy, someone on the Internet wants me to calm down because I point out that they are making a lazy point. Sheesh, tough crowd! Whether you realize it or not, you can want to not burn fossil fuels, but if there's a profit to be made doing it, believe me, enough miners will bend their morality to make a profit. You act like everyone involved in this experiment has pure intentions. I'd argue that's untrue.
- jude- 6y ago
  You'd be a lot more convincing if you weren't in the throes of a hissyfit over something that's 0.5% of the US's total CO2 output in 2019. It's not great, but it's far from the worst problem. Like, bad building insulation in 2016 is responsible for _3x_ the CO2 emissions of Bitcoin _today_. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829795.
  - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
    But Bitcoin is only going to continue to grow exponentially and the CO2 emissions by it will easily outpace building insulation problems. And how is making points to the contrary of yours copping a hissie-fit? I'm just having a disagreement. Not everyone shares your world view.
ben_w 6y ago
> Calm down. FYI this is the worst thing one can say during a discussion. The effect, regardless of intent, is always to annoy the other.
- fouric 6y ago
  > The effect, regardless of intent, is always to annoy the other. Combined with the further-down "Here, let me Google that for you.", it seems likely that that was the intended effect. It's pretty clear that negative value to the discussion was provided by both comments, in addition to the (subjective) dismissive attitude.
  - jude- 6y ago
    Perhaps this is just a difference in interpersonal communication styles, but if I were so chided in either case, I would have at least taken it to heart. Like, I don't ask questions whose answers can be Googled; I personally find it morally repugnant -- offensive even -- to ask a human to do a machine's job. The problem at hand is that CO2 emissions exist and must be curtailed. This thread comes from a certain individual's repeated refusal to separate addressing electricity generation's CO2 emissions from moralistic opinions about the downstream use of that electricity. As if Mother Nature cared about our moralizing. But thanks anyway for the tone-policing. Really adds to the discussion.
curryst 6y ago
You're right, it is the CO2 emissions, but they're effectively unavoidable. We do not have enough renewable energy sources built right now to support even the current load. Additional load means dirty power plants stay online longer as we wait for enough green energy sources to come online. Even if all the miners were running on entirely green energy, there's an opportunity cost. That green energy could be used to power homes and we could shut down coal power plants. I don't care that you bought 9,000 solar panels to power your mining farm, because that's 9,000 solar panels that could have been hooked up to the grid. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I find cryptocurrencies interesting and would like for them to exist, but we're in a terrible position to be pissing away electricity right now. In the scheme of ways to use electricity, Bitcoin is a pretty frivolous use too. The electricity consumption is just so outsized compared to the actual physical gain (and I'm not talking about money made from speculating). If I were the ruler of the world, I'd give it a transaction tax that was proportional to the percentage of load generation that isn't renewable. If 40% of our energy is still dirty, then there's a 40% transaction tax. If we can get that down to 5%, then there's only a 5% tax. I don't see a reason to ban them, we just need to cut power consumption and thus CO2 emissions wherever we can.
- jude- 6y ago
  Sure, and this is all true even if cryptocurrencies didn't exist. I'm old enough to remember the days before Bitcoin, where there was similar pearl-clutching about cloud computing. I'm calling for people to separate the problem of CO2 emissions from moral arguments about the nature of downstream electricity consumption. Mother Nature doesn't give a single flying f*ck about our moralizing; the CO2 emissions are just as bad either way.

by jude- 6y ago

abduhl 6y ago

You didn’t answer their question. Can you quantify what things pollute more?

jude- 6y ago
Here, let me Google that for you. First, let's assume for a moment that this February 2021 CNBC source [1] is correct in that Bitcoin mining produces 36.94 megatons of CO2 per year. The original source the CNBC article cited can be found here: [3] (which currently pegs Bitcoin at 47.62 megatons/year). According to the EPA, the US economy alone produced 6,558 megatons of CO2 [2] in 2019 (i.e. under pre-COVID emissions). So, Bitcoin's CO2 annualized output as of February 2021 was 0.5% of the US economy's CO2 output from 2 years ago. This works out to be: * 5.6% of the US agricultural sector emissions, OR * 4.3% of US commercial and residential building emissions (heating, cooling, waste), OR * 2.4% of the US manufacturing industry, OR * 2.2% of all US electricity generation, OR * 1.9% of all US transportation emissions According to this article from 2016 published in Environmental Research Letters [4], the US could save a combined 110 megatons of CO2 emissions simply by using better building insulation, since it would reduce heating/cooling energy expenditure. That's about 3x the Bitcoin CO2 emission rate I quoted above. So, @SwimSwimHungry, I'll ask once again: why the outrage over cryptocurrencies? Can I expect you to have 3x the outrage over bad building insulation? [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bitcoin-btc-surge-renews-worries-about-its-massive-carbon-footprint.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bitcoin-btc-surge-renews-wor... [2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [3] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption [4] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034017 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/03...
- SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
  My response to you is quite simple. Unlike virtually every other technology that's been created (like computers, cars, smartphones, etc), Bitcoin simply exists in a form where the primary purpose is to waste energy, and the system inherently incentivizes it. Also, the issue of bad building insulation does not in any manner invalidate my concern with the growing problem of Bitcoin now and in the future. Bad building insulation can also be fixed relatively easily, and the incentive for a fix would be an energy cost savings to the property owner. Bitcoin is the exact opposite of this. In order for the network to remain secure, it must burn copious amounts of energy. That is my general outrage summarized there. And that doesn't even begin my issues pertaining to lack of user friendliness surrounding cryptocurrencies (not your keys, not your coins), how it suckers people into something they don't fully understand (people see $$$ and throw money at it without quantifying the proper risks - see the crashes from 2013 and 2017 and all the run on exchanges that left people empty handed), the absolutely awful existence of ransomware, and the constant tape painting with tethers (which by the way, we still can't get a proper audit on them and they are just about as opaque as the Fed is with regards to the Federal Reserve). I believe I've made my points at this juncture. We may have to simply agree to disagree otherwise.
  - jude- 6y ago
    > Bitcoin simply exists in a form where the primary purpose is to waste energy, That's just your moral judgement. The people who use and make a living off of Bitcoin certainly don't see it as a waste. > In order for the network to remain secure, it must burn copious amounts of energy. First, this does not preclude PoW from existing in a world powered 100% renewable energy. Second, I've already outlined a way to economically penalize PoW miners for using fossil fuels here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829269 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829269. Please do not make the mistake of believing that your (rightful) concerns about CO2 emissions from PoW are being overlooked, and please do not make the mistake of thinking that they cannot be addressed. PoW does not require burning fossil fuels to work.
    - SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
politician 6y ago
Sealioning.
pera 6y ago
Last time I checked standby power consumption only in the US was an order of magnitude higher than Bitcoin mining all around the world, but it's hard to estimate the emissions of the latter due to its decentralised nature.

SwimSwimHungry 6y ago

Oh boy, someone on the Internet wants me to calm down because I point out that they are making a lazy point. Sheesh, tough crowd! Whether you realize it or not, you can want to not burn fossil fuels, but if there's a profit to be made doing it, believe me, enough miners will bend their morality to make a profit. You act like everyone involved in this experiment has pure intentions. I'd argue that's untrue.

jude- 6y ago
You'd be a lot more convincing if you weren't in the throes of a hissyfit over something that's 0.5% of the US's total CO2 output in 2019. It's not great, but it's far from the worst problem. Like, bad building insulation in 2016 is responsible for _3x_ the CO2 emissions of Bitcoin _today_. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829795.
- SwimSwimHungry 6y ago
  But Bitcoin is only going to continue to grow exponentially and the CO2 emissions by it will easily outpace building insulation problems. And how is making points to the contrary of yours copping a hissie-fit? I'm just having a disagreement. Not everyone shares your world view.

ben_w 6y ago

> Calm down. FYI this is the worst thing one can say during a discussion. The effect, regardless of intent, is always to annoy the other.

fouric 6y ago
> The effect, regardless of intent, is always to annoy the other. Combined with the further-down "Here, let me Google that for you.", it seems likely that that was the intended effect. It's pretty clear that negative value to the discussion was provided by both comments, in addition to the (subjective) dismissive attitude.
- jude- 6y ago
  Perhaps this is just a difference in interpersonal communication styles, but if I were so chided in either case, I would have at least taken it to heart. Like, I don't ask questions whose answers can be Googled; I personally find it morally repugnant -- offensive even -- to ask a human to do a machine's job. The problem at hand is that CO2 emissions exist and must be curtailed. This thread comes from a certain individual's repeated refusal to separate addressing electricity generation's CO2 emissions from moralistic opinions about the downstream use of that electricity. As if Mother Nature cared about our moralizing. But thanks anyway for the tone-policing. Really adds to the discussion.

curryst 6y ago

You're right, it is the CO2 emissions, but they're effectively unavoidable. We do not have enough renewable energy sources built right now to support even the current load. Additional load means dirty power plants stay online longer as we wait for enough green energy sources to come online. Even if all the miners were running on entirely green energy, there's an opportunity cost. That green energy could be used to power homes and we could shut down coal power plants. I don't care that you bought 9,000 solar panels to power your mining farm, because that's 9,000 solar panels that could have been hooked up to the grid. I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I find cryptocurrencies interesting and would like for them to exist, but we're in a terrible position to be pissing away electricity right now. In the scheme of ways to use electricity, Bitcoin is a pretty frivolous use too. The electricity consumption is just so outsized compared to the actual physical gain (and I'm not talking about money made from speculating). If I were the ruler of the world, I'd give it a transaction tax that was proportional to the percentage of load generation that isn't renewable. If 40% of our energy is still dirty, then there's a 40% transaction tax. If we can get that down to 5%, then there's only a 5% tax. I don't see a reason to ban them, we just need to cut power consumption and thus CO2 emissions wherever we can.

jude- 6y ago
Sure, and this is all true even if cryptocurrencies didn't exist. I'm old enough to remember the days before Bitcoin, where there was similar pearl-clutching about cloud computing. I'm calling for people to separate the problem of CO2 emissions from moral arguments about the nature of downstream electricity consumption. Mother Nature doesn't give a single flying f*ck about our moralizing; the CO2 emissions are just as bad either way.