4 ms·

I’ve gone back and forth on this myself, but I think it is valid to consider the cost of the entire network as a matter of carbon accounting. After all, one of

by paulgb 5y ago

I’ve gone back and forth on this myself, but I think it is valid to consider the cost of the entire network as a matter of carbon accounting. After all, one of Bitcoin’s selling points is the difficulty of a double-spend. This wouldn’t be the case if Bitcoin mining was not subsidized from the pool of unmined coins.

meowface 5y ago
I agree in general, but it makes the analysis more complicated, I think, especially when considering marginal usage/activity from the perspective of an end user/consumer. For example, one could naively believe that there's absolutely no marginal emission from deciding to get on a plane. The plane is emitting basically the same amount whether there's 99 people on board or 99 + 1 (you) on board, and the plane's going to make that particular flight whether or not you get on. However, you're funding the airline industry and increasing demand (and therefore supply) for flights along that route and perhaps also indirectly helping pay for other things the airline is doing, so that could probably be considered a marginal emission contribution. If you ignore transaction fees for a moment, it seems like this logic doesn't quite work for cryptocurrency networks. It seems like a closer analogy would be something like a contrived scenario with an airline that has routes which are absolutely static and predetermined (e.g. a contrived scenario where an airline decides it's going to fly a passenger plane a certain route once per day every day at the exact same time for a year no matter what, even if no one's aboard, and also the tickets are free if assuming no transaction fees). There are still the indirect issues with supporting the network, but it seems like there's less of a marginal emission concern if you're someone who's just making transactions, or arguably even no marginal emission concern. In reality, you are adding some marginal emissions due to transaction fees (direct incentive to mine), and the indirect incentives could maybe be broken down into something marginal as well (no one using the network = no incentive to mine since the currency would probably have no value), but basically it kind of feels like there's less of a direct marginal emission concern as an end user of the network compared to something like getting on a plane, especially if you take transaction fees out of the equation. In that sense, it feels like abstaining is somewhat more of a moral protest rather than a direct economic "vote" or boycott. Am I wrong about any of this? I probably am; this is just a random thought. Maybe the transaction fees are the crux of it (even if the block rewards are much more lucrative), so eliminating them from the equation for the sake of argument makes the whole point moot?
wmf 5y ago
Yes, rather than thinking about transactions we should ask whether the existence of Bitcoin as a whole is worth 6 GW of power.
- doomroot 5y ago
  Haven’t the people spending the GWs of power already done that?
  - wmf 5y ago
    Ultimately the money comes from people buying in to Bitcoin and many of them are not aware of the power consumption or the fact that it's possible to achieve number go up with virtually no energy.
    - Taek 5y ago
      The people buying Bitcoin don't need to be aware that it costs 6 GW of power, any more than they need to be aware of the electricity costs associated with the manufacture of plastic, electronics, or other goods and services. If we as a society feel like there is too much energy being consumed, we should regulate the production, and let the market come to equilibrium on a fair price for the cost of electricity. If you don't like the fact that coal plants are spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, regulate the coal plants, not Bitcoin. Regulation of electricity will increase the cost of electricity, which will naturally reduce the total amount of electrify that Bitcoin uses - Bitcoin's energy use is proportional to the price of energy, not to the actual quantity of energy.
      - wmf 5y ago
        I'm assuming that our society doesn't/can't internalize externalities.
      - Nursie 5y ago
        > The people buying Bitcoin don't need to be aware that it costs 6 GW of power, any more than they need to be aware of the electricity costs associated with the manufacture of plastic, electronics, or other goods and services. But people do need to be aware of the environmental costs of such things, because society does not account for negative externalities. > regulate the coal plants, not Bitcoin. Regulation of electricity will increase the cost of electricity What if society actually thinks it's reasonable to discriminate on energy use? What if we want to provide cheap-ish energy for end-consumers, for essential services like the medical sector, but not for cryptocurrencies? Seems like a fine choice for a society to make.

by paulgb 5y ago

meowface 5y ago

I agree in general, but it makes the analysis more complicated, I think, especially when considering marginal usage/activity from the perspective of an end user/consumer. For example, one could naively believe that there's absolutely no marginal emission from deciding to get on a plane. The plane is emitting basically the same amount whether there's 99 people on board or 99 + 1 (you) on board, and the plane's going to make that particular flight whether or not you get on. However, you're funding the airline industry and increasing demand (and therefore supply) for flights along that route and perhaps also indirectly helping pay for other things the airline is doing, so that could probably be considered a marginal emission contribution. If you ignore transaction fees for a moment, it seems like this logic doesn't quite work for cryptocurrency networks. It seems like a closer analogy would be something like a contrived scenario with an airline that has routes which are absolutely static and predetermined (e.g. a contrived scenario where an airline decides it's going to fly a passenger plane a certain route once per day every day at the exact same time for a year no matter what, even if no one's aboard, and also the tickets are free if assuming no transaction fees). There are still the indirect issues with supporting the network, but it seems like there's less of a marginal emission concern if you're someone who's just making transactions, or arguably even no marginal emission concern. In reality, you are adding some marginal emissions due to transaction fees (direct incentive to mine), and the indirect incentives could maybe be broken down into something marginal as well (no one using the network = no incentive to mine since the currency would probably have no value), but basically it kind of feels like there's less of a direct marginal emission concern as an end user of the network compared to something like getting on a plane, especially if you take transaction fees out of the equation. In that sense, it feels like abstaining is somewhat more of a moral protest rather than a direct economic "vote" or boycott. Am I wrong about any of this? I probably am; this is just a random thought. Maybe the transaction fees are the crux of it (even if the block rewards are much more lucrative), so eliminating them from the equation for the sake of argument makes the whole point moot?

wmf 5y ago

Yes, rather than thinking about transactions we should ask whether the existence of Bitcoin as a whole is worth 6 GW of power.

doomroot 5y ago
Haven’t the people spending the GWs of power already done that?
- wmf 5y ago
  Ultimately the money comes from people buying in to Bitcoin and many of them are not aware of the power consumption or the fact that it's possible to achieve number go up with virtually no energy.
  - Taek 5y ago
    The people buying Bitcoin don't need to be aware that it costs 6 GW of power, any more than they need to be aware of the electricity costs associated with the manufacture of plastic, electronics, or other goods and services. If we as a society feel like there is too much energy being consumed, we should regulate the production, and let the market come to equilibrium on a fair price for the cost of electricity. If you don't like the fact that coal plants are spewing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, regulate the coal plants, not Bitcoin. Regulation of electricity will increase the cost of electricity, which will naturally reduce the total amount of electrify that Bitcoin uses - Bitcoin's energy use is proportional to the price of energy, not to the actual quantity of energy.
    - wmf 5y ago
      I'm assuming that our society doesn't/can't internalize externalities.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      > The people buying Bitcoin don't need to be aware that it costs 6 GW of power, any more than they need to be aware of the electricity costs associated with the manufacture of plastic, electronics, or other goods and services. But people do need to be aware of the environmental costs of such things, because society does not account for negative externalities. > regulate the coal plants, not Bitcoin. Regulation of electricity will increase the cost of electricity What if society actually thinks it's reasonable to discriminate on energy use? What if we want to provide cheap-ish energy for end-consumers, for essential services like the medical sector, but not for cryptocurrencies? Seems like a fine choice for a society to make.