8 ms·

> that every Joule that is used for bitcoin mining is a Joule that wasn't used somewhere else. This applies to so many things. Snapchat data center? YouTube us

by erentz 5y ago

> that every Joule that is used for bitcoin mining is a Joule that wasn't used somewhere else. This applies to so many things. Snapchat data center? YouTube using gigawatts to process and stream cat videos? On and on. It’s really hard to control what people do with energy. Much better to focus on ensuring its priced correctly and all it’s externalities are properly included in that price. Then we don’t have to involve ourselves in moral debates about what’s a valid or invalid use.

riffraff 5y ago
The problem with that is that you have to get the whole planet to agree, or you're just shifting the problem to a different country.
- erentz 5y ago
  But does banning something do anything different? Say the USA bans Bitcoin mining due to concerns about its energy use. That doesn’t stop mining in China or elsewhere. On top of that the US now needs to set up an invasive investigation system for enforcing the ban within its own borders. Applies just as well to YouTube cat videos or any other poor use of energy in the digital realm. Banning YouTube in the USA doesn’t mean that China won’t have data centers streaming cat videos to the USA. Instead if the USA really was concerned about efficient use of energy and capturing the externalities it could extremely easily (in the scheme of things) work out a better pricing mechanism such as a CO2 tax, and implement it. If it were serious it would also be able to find many willing allies in Europe and elsewhere that would sign up to a multilateral treaty.
  - Blumfid 5y ago
    That would break bitcoin very fast. No american will continue to infest in bitcoin if the majority of miners is in china only
    - Nursie 5y ago
      But the majority of miners are already in China...
      - Blumfid 5y ago
        And no one is probably trusting it really. Btc is small and my point I made with the assumption that bitcoin has real influence.
yourabstraction 5y ago
I completely agree, trying to solve these kind of issues with morals really doesn't scale well at all. It's much better to just let people be greedy but put in place a system of taxation and economic incentives to guide the desired outcomes.
lottin 5y ago
Unlike Bitcoin, the Snapchat data centre isn't designed to waste as much electricity as fast as it possibly can. Bitcoin is designed to be wasteful, so don't be surprised if people takes issue with that.
- erentz 5y ago
  This really is just your moral judgement not a fact. You think Bitcoin is wasteful. Others think it’s useful. And the debate has raged for a decade. I think Snapchat is wasteful. It clearly has no beneficial use to society. But you think it is beneficial somehow. Enumerating every use of electricity like this, and convening some panel to judge and decide if they should be allowed or not will never get us anywhere good. Meanwhile you and I if we are both reasonable can agree that both services should pay the full cost of their energy use. Edit: I see by the downvotes that people disagree. So how is it a settled fact that Bitcoin is more wasteful than e.g. Snapchat? Yes I know Bitcoin burns electricity to secure its network. But clearly people find that useful and value that enough to actually spend the money to do that. What should be the rules for deciding what should and shouldn’t be allowed?
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > What should be the rules for deciding what should and shouldn’t be allowed? You wanna burn your own house to the ground, your problem. You live in a flat? Now it’s bigger than you. I’m optimistic about future tech and green energy and expect PV to solve greenhouse emissions. BTC is, by design, such that allowing it to succeed would lead to an arms race that has no upper bound — build a Dyson swarm, and the entire output of Sol gets spent fighting over who can find the right random numbers that hash in the right way, and it still doesn’t end. (Of course, civilization doesn’t last that long, because the moment energy is priced in BTC it becomes worthwhile doing anything physically possible to get a 51% double-spend attack).
  - Blumfid 5y ago
    Snapchat actually entertain people and has some kind of value. Bitcoin burns resources for a handful people. A tremendous amount. It doesn't provide jobs in comparison to snapchat and other services. And independent of snapchat: feel free to see snapchat as a resource waste but that doesn't make bitcoins better.
nathias 5y ago
why would you like to control that, who do you think can establish what is a good use of energy?
Angostura 5y ago
But nobody is claiming that the energy wasted in the snapchat data centre can make the world a better place by increasing demand for clean energy

by erentz 5y ago

riffraff 5y ago

The problem with that is that you have to get the whole planet to agree, or you're just shifting the problem to a different country.

erentz 5y ago
But does banning something do anything different? Say the USA bans Bitcoin mining due to concerns about its energy use. That doesn’t stop mining in China or elsewhere. On top of that the US now needs to set up an invasive investigation system for enforcing the ban within its own borders. Applies just as well to YouTube cat videos or any other poor use of energy in the digital realm. Banning YouTube in the USA doesn’t mean that China won’t have data centers streaming cat videos to the USA. Instead if the USA really was concerned about efficient use of energy and capturing the externalities it could extremely easily (in the scheme of things) work out a better pricing mechanism such as a CO2 tax, and implement it. If it were serious it would also be able to find many willing allies in Europe and elsewhere that would sign up to a multilateral treaty.
- Blumfid 5y ago
  That would break bitcoin very fast. No american will continue to infest in bitcoin if the majority of miners is in china only
  - Nursie 5y ago
    But the majority of miners are already in China...
    - Blumfid 5y ago
      And no one is probably trusting it really. Btc is small and my point I made with the assumption that bitcoin has real influence.

yourabstraction 5y ago

I completely agree, trying to solve these kind of issues with morals really doesn't scale well at all. It's much better to just let people be greedy but put in place a system of taxation and economic incentives to guide the desired outcomes.

lottin 5y ago

Unlike Bitcoin, the Snapchat data centre isn't designed to waste as much electricity as fast as it possibly can. Bitcoin is designed to be wasteful, so don't be surprised if people takes issue with that.

erentz 5y ago
This really is just your moral judgement not a fact. You think Bitcoin is wasteful. Others think it’s useful. And the debate has raged for a decade. I think Snapchat is wasteful. It clearly has no beneficial use to society. But you think it is beneficial somehow. Enumerating every use of electricity like this, and convening some panel to judge and decide if they should be allowed or not will never get us anywhere good. Meanwhile you and I if we are both reasonable can agree that both services should pay the full cost of their energy use. Edit: I see by the downvotes that people disagree. So how is it a settled fact that Bitcoin is more wasteful than e.g. Snapchat? Yes I know Bitcoin burns electricity to secure its network. But clearly people find that useful and value that enough to actually spend the money to do that. What should be the rules for deciding what should and shouldn’t be allowed?
- ben_w 5y ago
  > What should be the rules for deciding what should and shouldn’t be allowed? You wanna burn your own house to the ground, your problem. You live in a flat? Now it’s bigger than you. I’m optimistic about future tech and green energy and expect PV to solve greenhouse emissions. BTC is, by design, such that allowing it to succeed would lead to an arms race that has no upper bound — build a Dyson swarm, and the entire output of Sol gets spent fighting over who can find the right random numbers that hash in the right way, and it still doesn’t end. (Of course, civilization doesn’t last that long, because the moment energy is priced in BTC it becomes worthwhile doing anything physically possible to get a 51% double-spend attack).
- Blumfid 5y ago
  Snapchat actually entertain people and has some kind of value. Bitcoin burns resources for a handful people. A tremendous amount. It doesn't provide jobs in comparison to snapchat and other services. And independent of snapchat: feel free to see snapchat as a resource waste but that doesn't make bitcoins better.

nathias 5y ago

why would you like to control that, who do you think can establish what is a good use of energy?

Angostura 5y ago

But nobody is claiming that the energy wasted in the snapchat data centre can make the world a better place by increasing demand for clean energy