3 ms·

But you're comparing this with nonrenewable energy! I'll state for the third time that I'm in favour of replacing non-renewable energy with renewable energy. W

But you're comparing this with nonrenewable energy! I'll state for the third time that I'm in favour of replacing non-renewable energy with renewable energy. What I'm saying is that it's still wasteful, and not cost-free if we're producing insane amounts of energy that don't need to be produced in the first place.

lamontcg 6y ago
Your argument is a bit of a mess though. It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off. That would lower energy demand and prices and we're now in a regime where that makes running carbon-burning plants less attractive and they'd get turned off while any renewables that bitcoin is using would become available. And if I could snap my fingers and replace all the GHGs with wind I would and I wouldn't care about your concerns. And you're trying to argue that I can't make that comparison but I absolutely am. The issues you're bringing up aren't 1% of the problem that we have with GHGs so worrying about perfect renewable energy or overall dropping demand is so much less right now than worrying about getting off GHGs. The localized 0.5C surface warming of wind in that paper just isn't worth talking about at this point. But it isn't totally perfect! Surely you must agree? No. I. Do. Not. Care. About. Perfection.
- pcthrowaway 6y ago
  > It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off This is what I've been arguing the whole time. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to replace more impactful energy production with sustainable energy production. I'm saying we shouldn't be using energy on something as wasteful as proof-of-work, when we can have blockchain technology without it, because that energy production doesn't come without impact no matter how much the proof-of-work supporters and beneficiaries try to greenwash it.

lamontcg 6y ago

Your argument is a bit of a mess though. It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off. That would lower energy demand and prices and we're now in a regime where that makes running carbon-burning plants less attractive and they'd get turned off while any renewables that bitcoin is using would become available. And if I could snap my fingers and replace all the GHGs with wind I would and I wouldn't care about your concerns. And you're trying to argue that I can't make that comparison but I absolutely am. The issues you're bringing up aren't 1% of the problem that we have with GHGs so worrying about perfect renewable energy or overall dropping demand is so much less right now than worrying about getting off GHGs. The localized 0.5C surface warming of wind in that paper just isn't worth talking about at this point. But it isn't totally perfect! Surely you must agree? No. I. Do. Not. Care. About. Perfection.

pcthrowaway 6y ago
> It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off This is what I've been arguing the whole time. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to replace more impactful energy production with sustainable energy production. I'm saying we shouldn't be using energy on something as wasteful as proof-of-work, when we can have blockchain technology without it, because that energy production doesn't come without impact no matter how much the proof-of-work supporters and beneficiaries try to greenwash it.