6 ms·

> Even the predicted environmental impact of Bitcoin, which does require lots of computing firepower, has been considerably exaggerated by some researchers. Ex

> Even the predicted environmental impact of Bitcoin, which does require lots of computing firepower, has been considerably exaggerated by some researchers. Exaggerated or not, what's aggravating is that Bitcoin is literally secured by the consumption of power through wasting it on hashing. To process the same amount of transactions per second in a non-trustless (trustful?) system, you'd need, like, a few Raspberry Pis around the world. And the trustlessness is dodgy anyway, with a few big mining pools having over 51% of the mining, with everyone basically having to trust the developers, etc.

sneak 5y ago
Neither the miners nor the developers control bitcoin's consensus. The stability of bitcoin is the tyranny of the installed base. Even non-mining nodes will not relay invalid blocks that break the fundamental rules. See also: Ethereum Classic, a case study in developer-as-dictator
zamadatix 5y ago
I'm not a fan of Bitcoin at all but that argument could be used for anything - "what's aggravating is that cars are literally moved by the consumption of power through wasting it on combustion in the engine", "what's aggravating is that computers are literally operated by the consumption of power to waste it on browsing HN", "what's aggravating is that TV images are literally sent by the consumption of power through wasting it on radio waves" and so on. The only case it seems like a waste is if you don't value the output. If someone values browsing HN, individual transport, watching TV, or distributed consensus then it's not wasted it was used. Inefficient perhaps, but the energy use was intentional for a value to someone not discarded for no gain.
- ufo 5y ago
  Not at all! Bitcoin is not just inefficient, it is purposefully inefficient on a colossal scale. By design, all the energy is turned into waste heat.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    "Waste heat is heat that is produced by a machine, or other process that uses energy, as a byproduct of doing work." You can't have "all waste heat" as that would require doing no work which would result in... no waste heat.
    - zbrozek 5y ago
      In those other processes the designers aim for efficiency - more useful product per entropy. In bitcoin it's exactly the opposite. That makes it unpalatable.
      - zamadatix 5y ago
        It is inefficient and unpalatable compared to traditional trust absolutely, even to some other crypto methods that try to achieve similar goals. Like I said I'm not really a fan of Bitcoin (or crypto to be honest). That being said Bitcoin doesn't aim for less product per entropy. That would literally mean you get more reward for doing the same work in the same time but less efficiently which isn't true. That doesn't mean everyone always uses the most efficient hashing method, just like not every car uses the same engine because it has the best efficiency, it just means the aim isn't towards making less product per entropy. The product may not be aligned with what you want (e.g. "very efficient way to trust a transaction") but that's back to calling the energy usage all "just for waste" because you don't personally value the output the same way as someone else (which is true of every use of energy).
      - clarkmoody 5y ago
        Bitcoin mining strives for as much efficiency as any other electronic process: ASIC chips are hitting the smallest process size available. Miners are extremely sensitive to electricity cost, so they must be efficient there. They do not compete with households for power. If Bitcoin mining were aiming to consume the most energy possible, then the hashing would be done by hand on pencil and paper.
    - leetcrew 5y ago
      maybe I'm missing a semantic argument here, but don't computers always convert ~100% of their input power to waste heat? if my cpu consumes 140W, all of that gets dissipated through the heatspreader (perhaps minus a minuscule quantity of potential energy storing register/cache state).
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  The same argument can't be made for other goods. Bitcoin bakes the energy cost of transaction processing into the security model. Security and ownership transfer for cars and televisions relies on good old-fashioned physical locks and paper records. That has other inefficiencies, but not much energy cost. The introduction of the internal combustion engine to the world definitely involved some tradeoffs in terms of pollution and mineral extraction, but it was always possible to make cars more efficient without breaking the basis of the ownership record for cars.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    The same argument can be made about other systems they just aren't as grossly inefficient as Bitcoin so it isn't (usually) worth mentioning. The energy cost of doing something is always baked in as it's impossible to do anything without using energy, the difference is simply the cost vs output ratio is shit (efficiency) not that Bitcoin has a large chunk of waste energy for a reason (decentralized consensus) nobody values. I don't value it but obviously some do, same as some don't value individual transport over mass transit but I do. It doesn't mean a car is aggravating because it solely exists to waste energy in means a car is ridiculously inefficient. Same story with crytpocurrency.
- coryrc 5y ago
  If the heat from bitcoin mining was used to replace resistance heat in existing places, then it would be okay.
iNane9000 5y ago
“exaggerated by some researchers” I’m beginning to detect a pattern here. Exaggerating researchers are on the rise. It feels as though researchers might be incentivized to exaggerate. The news media help them with that. Maybe we need more research in this area.
- apocalypstyx 5y ago
  Always be wary of the potential for apophenia.
- papandada 5y ago
  This raises a philosophy 101 survey course worth of epistemological problems in my head.
clarkmoody 5y ago
Bitcoin miners use hashpower not only to find the next block but to secure the entire chain to that point. So each block secures over 650 million transactions right now, and that number only increases. Your word "waste" implies a value judgement, and thus you have departed the realm of scientific inquiry. The transactions-per-second energy argument is completely fallacious and often made in bad faith. It makes no sense whatsoever. Comparing Bitcoin (a settlement system) to some other credit-based payment system is not a genuine comparison. Ignoring the Lightning Network in any discussion of Bitcoin shows a distinct lack of subject-matter awareness. If you dig into the power grid system today, you'll find that a huge amount of power generated by the world's energy producers goes unused. The Bitcoin network uses far less energy than the amount lost during normal generation, yet I see no hand-wringing about this colossal "waste" boiling the oceans.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kemonocode 5y ago
"Waste" is value judgement. For me, it's securing a network of decentralized transactions, so that power isn't wasted. Given my distaste for adtech and certain governments, I'd qualify their power and resource usage as a waste and that the world would be better off without them, even if the people who work in adtech or benefit from said governments would disagree.
jl6 5y ago
The issue with Bitcoin is that there’s no cap on potential power consumption. It would eat up the sun if someone thought that would improve their returns.
radu_floricica 5y ago
If this were true, people would use miners to heat houses. Everywhere. It's secured by a mix of things, including expertise, investment and yes, a large energy component. Far from a new thing.
- adrianN 5y ago
  People would use miners to heat homes only if that were cheaper than using other means of heating, such as heat pumps.
- mint2 5y ago
  Resistive heating is not efficient compared to heat pumps. The value obtained running the miners would have to be greater than the difference in cost between the two, and reasonably stable, for realistic people to be even started to consider it.

sneak 5y ago

Neither the miners nor the developers control bitcoin's consensus. The stability of bitcoin is the tyranny of the installed base. Even non-mining nodes will not relay invalid blocks that break the fundamental rules. See also: Ethereum Classic, a case study in developer-as-dictator

zamadatix 5y ago

I'm not a fan of Bitcoin at all but that argument could be used for anything - "what's aggravating is that cars are literally moved by the consumption of power through wasting it on combustion in the engine", "what's aggravating is that computers are literally operated by the consumption of power to waste it on browsing HN", "what's aggravating is that TV images are literally sent by the consumption of power through wasting it on radio waves" and so on. The only case it seems like a waste is if you don't value the output. If someone values browsing HN, individual transport, watching TV, or distributed consensus then it's not wasted it was used. Inefficient perhaps, but the energy use was intentional for a value to someone not discarded for no gain.

ufo 5y ago
Not at all! Bitcoin is not just inefficient, it is purposefully inefficient on a colossal scale. By design, all the energy is turned into waste heat.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  "Waste heat is heat that is produced by a machine, or other process that uses energy, as a byproduct of doing work." You can't have "all waste heat" as that would require doing no work which would result in... no waste heat.
  - zbrozek 5y ago
    In those other processes the designers aim for efficiency - more useful product per entropy. In bitcoin it's exactly the opposite. That makes it unpalatable.
    - zamadatix 5y ago
      It is inefficient and unpalatable compared to traditional trust absolutely, even to some other crypto methods that try to achieve similar goals. Like I said I'm not really a fan of Bitcoin (or crypto to be honest). That being said Bitcoin doesn't aim for less product per entropy. That would literally mean you get more reward for doing the same work in the same time but less efficiently which isn't true. That doesn't mean everyone always uses the most efficient hashing method, just like not every car uses the same engine because it has the best efficiency, it just means the aim isn't towards making less product per entropy. The product may not be aligned with what you want (e.g. "very efficient way to trust a transaction") but that's back to calling the energy usage all "just for waste" because you don't personally value the output the same way as someone else (which is true of every use of energy).
    - clarkmoody 5y ago
      Bitcoin mining strives for as much efficiency as any other electronic process: ASIC chips are hitting the smallest process size available. Miners are extremely sensitive to electricity cost, so they must be efficient there. They do not compete with households for power. If Bitcoin mining were aiming to consume the most energy possible, then the hashing would be done by hand on pencil and paper.
  - leetcrew 5y ago
    maybe I'm missing a semantic argument here, but don't computers always convert ~100% of their input power to waste heat? if my cpu consumes 140W, all of that gets dissipated through the heatspreader (perhaps minus a minuscule quantity of potential energy storing register/cache state).
nonameiguess 5y ago
The same argument can't be made for other goods. Bitcoin bakes the energy cost of transaction processing into the security model. Security and ownership transfer for cars and televisions relies on good old-fashioned physical locks and paper records. That has other inefficiencies, but not much energy cost. The introduction of the internal combustion engine to the world definitely involved some tradeoffs in terms of pollution and mineral extraction, but it was always possible to make cars more efficient without breaking the basis of the ownership record for cars.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  The same argument can be made about other systems they just aren't as grossly inefficient as Bitcoin so it isn't (usually) worth mentioning. The energy cost of doing something is always baked in as it's impossible to do anything without using energy, the difference is simply the cost vs output ratio is shit (efficiency) not that Bitcoin has a large chunk of waste energy for a reason (decentralized consensus) nobody values. I don't value it but obviously some do, same as some don't value individual transport over mass transit but I do. It doesn't mean a car is aggravating because it solely exists to waste energy in means a car is ridiculously inefficient. Same story with crytpocurrency.
coryrc 5y ago
If the heat from bitcoin mining was used to replace resistance heat in existing places, then it would be okay.

iNane9000 5y ago

“exaggerated by some researchers” I’m beginning to detect a pattern here. Exaggerating researchers are on the rise. It feels as though researchers might be incentivized to exaggerate. The news media help them with that. Maybe we need more research in this area.

apocalypstyx 5y ago
Always be wary of the potential for apophenia.
papandada 5y ago
This raises a philosophy 101 survey course worth of epistemological problems in my head.

clarkmoody 5y ago

Bitcoin miners use hashpower not only to find the next block but to secure the entire chain to that point. So each block secures over 650 million transactions right now, and that number only increases. Your word "waste" implies a value judgement, and thus you have departed the realm of scientific inquiry. The transactions-per-second energy argument is completely fallacious and often made in bad faith. It makes no sense whatsoever. Comparing Bitcoin (a settlement system) to some other credit-based payment system is not a genuine comparison. Ignoring the Lightning Network in any discussion of Bitcoin shows a distinct lack of subject-matter awareness. If you dig into the power grid system today, you'll find that a huge amount of power generated by the world's energy producers goes unused. The Bitcoin network uses far less energy than the amount lost during normal generation, yet I see no hand-wringing about this colossal "waste" boiling the oceans.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kemonocode 5y ago

"Waste" is value judgement. For me, it's securing a network of decentralized transactions, so that power isn't wasted. Given my distaste for adtech and certain governments, I'd qualify their power and resource usage as a waste and that the world would be better off without them, even if the people who work in adtech or benefit from said governments would disagree.

jl6 5y ago

The issue with Bitcoin is that there’s no cap on potential power consumption. It would eat up the sun if someone thought that would improve their returns.

radu_floricica 5y ago

If this were true, people would use miners to heat houses. Everywhere. It's secured by a mix of things, including expertise, investment and yes, a large energy component. Far from a new thing.

adrianN 5y ago
People would use miners to heat homes only if that were cheaper than using other means of heating, such as heat pumps.
mint2 5y ago
Resistive heating is not efficient compared to heat pumps. The value obtained running the miners would have to be greater than the difference in cost between the two, and reasonably stable, for realistic people to be even started to consider it.