3 ms·
But is it even a productive first step? There are arguments to be made that proof-of-work mining incentivizes renewable R&D. By banning that because it uses "t
by beaner 5y ago
But is it even a productive first step? There are arguments to be made that proof-of-work mining incentivizes renewable R&D.
By banning that because it uses "too much" energy now - what are we potentially losing? What developments in renewables, energy storage, or grid development simply won't be there, which we won't know we don't have, because we banned the largest for-profit, skin-in-the-game competitive contest for low-cost energy that the world had ever seen 25 years prior?
Banning it outright is short-sighted. Thinking about it from a higher level is a way of addressing the real issue of carbon emissions while allowing a phenomenon that has the potential to massively help, not hurt, to thrive.
- Qworg 5y agoThe desire for energy is near limitless - PoW simply bends the curve upward. As the price of BTC increases, the drive for less costly energy slackens off. The issue is clearly a tragedy of the commons - the cost (higher air pollution/higher energy costs) is socialized, while the profits are centralized. So the maximization function is cheap >>> anything else. Why wouldn't we expect more and larger coal plants versus research into fusion reactors?
- beaner 5y agoThat's only true so long as the price continually rises. As soon as the price settles, everyone is operating on the margin and can only become more profitable by reducing costs. Unsubsidized renewables are already the cheapest new source of energy generation. [0] Even if miners wouldn't be doing direct renewable research themselves, their capital investments into renewables in the name of competition and cost-savings would incentivize more efficient technologies. In this case the immediate marginal profits from mining are centralized, and the larger benefits of more advanced renewable energy are socialized. Plus - do you believe that the price of Bitcoin will rise forever? If it did, wouldn't that mean to you that it might be doing something important, to constantly have growth and demand for 100 years? Cuz if I thought so then I'd want to preserve it, not throw it away. Sounds important. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewable-energy-is-now-the-cheapest-option-even-without-subsidies/?sh=69f424225a6b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/renewa...
- WorldMaker 5y agoBitcoin isn't the only option. We've already seen that when the price of Bitcoin dips miners flip over to whatever cryptocoin seems next to bubble, seems next most interesting. Certainly what is called Bitcoin itself (today) has "hard" "deflationary" "caps", but as soon as miners get bored with that, there's always more room for more forks and other coins. Even if Bitcoin isn't intended to be "growing forever", the ecosystem can and will.
- craftinator 5y ago> The desire for energy is near limitless - PoW simply bends the curve upward. As the price of BTC increases, the drive for less costly energy slackens off. Shameless hijacking here: at what point will the heat consumption/release rate be so great that the Earth becomes unable to support life? I've seen some back of the napkin calculations that estimate a couple hundred years, at our current acceleration.
- Qworg 5y agoIIRC (it has been a few years), we only need a few degrees to reach a tipping point. The decay of methane hydrates could push out 1000 GT CO2 equivalent suddenly, accelerating warming by roughly ~40-50 years.
- SerLava 5y agoMaking renewables isn't actually useful if they're used for something we don't even need to do. We could switch to a low-energy crypto currency and do all the things we were going to do with Bitcoin.
- belltaco 5y agoLighting all the oil and gas in the world on fire will also incentivize renewables. But that's not a good practice for a lot of reasons including increasing the pollution and CO2 levels.