4 ms·

All this talk about Bitcoin causing global warming is starting to feel like a targetted misinformation campaign. Yes it's wasteful, and yes it's using a fair a

All this talk about Bitcoin causing global warming is starting to feel like a targetted misinformation campaign. Yes it's wasteful, and yes it's using a fair amount of energy at the moment. But all estimates show it's still a very small fraction of the problem. It feels like we spend a disproportionate amount of time talking about bitcoins carbon footprint for its size.

originalvichy 6y ago
How can it be interpreted as misinformation if the information is pretty solidly based? Everyone is looking for low hanging fruit in the race to slow down the climate disaster and it’s an easy target. I’m glad online currencies exist as a technology but I’m not glad an energy intensive one is currently #1 when at the same time the entire tech is taken over by investors/speculators instead of users. And if calculations about Bitcoin’s footprint are true it uses up as much energy as Argentina. An entire country. I don’t think that for the use Bitcoin gets in the developed world it justifies energy uses at that level. It’s far from a small little thing to not care about.
- shawnz 6y ago
  > And if calculations about Bitcoin’s footprint are true it uses up as much energy as Argentina. An entire country. I don’t think that for the use Bitcoin gets in the developed world it justifies energy uses at that level. Compare for example with MGM's properties in Las Vegas which they claim consume 171 MW. That's not quite as much as Bitcoin, but it's still higher than 65 of the countries listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... So it's actually pretty easy to surpass the usage of "an entire country". And that to me seems like a much more useless waste than Bitcoin, which has significant uses besides entertainment
  - propertymagnate 6y ago
    To rephrase that, Bitcoin uses more energy that all of MGM's properties in Las Vegas.
    - shawnz 6y ago
      Yes, which seems reasonable to me. It would be more interesting if a global monetary system could use less than a bunch of casinos. (And maybe that will even happen with the adoption of proof-of-stake)
      - propertymagnate 6y ago
        I don't have any of the calculations, but I would argue that we probably have one and it is the fiat global monetary system. If bitcoin was a proof of stake and was the global monetary system I would have to re-think my opinions - at the moment it just seems like a cross between the worst aspects of Wall Street, the cookie clicker game, and the AI Paperclip Maximiser problem.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        shawnz 6y ago
        I would caution you to make your own judgements with such a hyped technology as cryptocurrencies. Everyone tends to have strong opinions about the way it "seems", both positive and negative.
- admax88q 6y ago
  I guess misinformation isn't the right term. It's not _wrong_, it just feels like it gets a disproportionate amount of attention.
yc-kraln 6y ago
This is literally a bitcoin mining operating looking to bring a coal-burning powerplant back online. Pay attention.
- admax88q 6y ago
  Ban/tax coal. So long as coal is cheap, people will use it for something. There's lots of ways to turn energy into money besides bitcoin mining. Gotta make carbon intensive energy not worth it.
dragonelite 6y ago
Its pretty much a misinformation campaign just like the drugs and weapon dealers. Wouldn't be surprised if they will use the terrorist and human rights angle next.
Slartie 6y ago
It feels like we spend a disproportionate amount of energy running the bitcoin network for its benefits. That's the reason it comes up a lot in those debates. Sure, cars use more energy emitting more CO2 right now, but the benefit of all the cars worldwide is in an entirely different dimension compared to Bitcoin. Most people intuitively grasp that stuff having a huge benefit for a huge lot of people must be allowed to use up more energy in absolute terms than stuff that has a very minor benefit for a very small group of people.
- saalweachter 6y ago
  The last time I looked into this it seemed like US junk mail might be roughly the same CO2-scale as Bitcoin. Which isn't an argument against killing Bitcoin for its contributions to CO2 emissions, mind you, but it seems another similar low-hanging fruit of generating a huge amount of waste to benefit a small number of people economically, while being extraordinarily simple to "just stop doing it". (As opposed to, say, fixing all building insulation in the US, which is a larger problem, and should be done, but is non-trivial to fix.) With the added benefit that a hundred million people actively hate the existence of junk mail, so I think "we need to ban junk mail because global warming" has legs.

originalvichy 6y ago

How can it be interpreted as misinformation if the information is pretty solidly based? Everyone is looking for low hanging fruit in the race to slow down the climate disaster and it’s an easy target. I’m glad online currencies exist as a technology but I’m not glad an energy intensive one is currently #1 when at the same time the entire tech is taken over by investors/speculators instead of users. And if calculations about Bitcoin’s footprint are true it uses up as much energy as Argentina. An entire country. I don’t think that for the use Bitcoin gets in the developed world it justifies energy uses at that level. It’s far from a small little thing to not care about.

shawnz 6y ago
> And if calculations about Bitcoin’s footprint are true it uses up as much energy as Argentina. An entire country. I don’t think that for the use Bitcoin gets in the developed world it justifies energy uses at that level. Compare for example with MGM's properties in Las Vegas which they claim consume 171 MW. That's not quite as much as Bitcoin, but it's still higher than 65 of the countries listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... So it's actually pretty easy to surpass the usage of "an entire country". And that to me seems like a much more useless waste than Bitcoin, which has significant uses besides entertainment
- propertymagnate 6y ago
  To rephrase that, Bitcoin uses more energy that all of MGM's properties in Las Vegas.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    Yes, which seems reasonable to me. It would be more interesting if a global monetary system could use less than a bunch of casinos. (And maybe that will even happen with the adoption of proof-of-stake)
    - propertymagnate 6y ago
      I don't have any of the calculations, but I would argue that we probably have one and it is the fiat global monetary system. If bitcoin was a proof of stake and was the global monetary system I would have to re-think my opinions - at the moment it just seems like a cross between the worst aspects of Wall Street, the cookie clicker game, and the AI Paperclip Maximiser problem.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - shawnz 6y ago
        I would caution you to make your own judgements with such a hyped technology as cryptocurrencies. Everyone tends to have strong opinions about the way it "seems", both positive and negative.
admax88q 6y ago
I guess misinformation isn't the right term. It's not _wrong_, it just feels like it gets a disproportionate amount of attention.

yc-kraln 6y ago

This is literally a bitcoin mining operating looking to bring a coal-burning powerplant back online. Pay attention.

admax88q 6y ago
Ban/tax coal. So long as coal is cheap, people will use it for something. There's lots of ways to turn energy into money besides bitcoin mining. Gotta make carbon intensive energy not worth it.

dragonelite 6y ago

Its pretty much a misinformation campaign just like the drugs and weapon dealers. Wouldn't be surprised if they will use the terrorist and human rights angle next.

Slartie 6y ago

It feels like we spend a disproportionate amount of energy running the bitcoin network for its benefits. That's the reason it comes up a lot in those debates. Sure, cars use more energy emitting more CO2 right now, but the benefit of all the cars worldwide is in an entirely different dimension compared to Bitcoin. Most people intuitively grasp that stuff having a huge benefit for a huge lot of people must be allowed to use up more energy in absolute terms than stuff that has a very minor benefit for a very small group of people.

saalweachter 6y ago
The last time I looked into this it seemed like US junk mail might be roughly the same CO2-scale as Bitcoin. Which isn't an argument against killing Bitcoin for its contributions to CO2 emissions, mind you, but it seems another similar low-hanging fruit of generating a huge amount of waste to benefit a small number of people economically, while being extraordinarily simple to "just stop doing it". (As opposed to, say, fixing all building insulation in the US, which is a larger problem, and should be done, but is non-trivial to fix.) With the added benefit that a hundred million people actively hate the existence of junk mail, so I think "we need to ban junk mail because global warming" has legs.