4 ms·

Does that 148 kWh also consider the energy spent on running the offices, energy spend on commute for VISA employees and all the other things that keep this syst

by kriz9 5y ago

Does that 148 kWh also consider the energy spent on running the offices, energy spend on commute for VISA employees and all the other things that keep this system working ?

jcranmer 5y ago
No, but neither does the 1200 kWh for Bitcoin also consider that energy. Bitcoin won't obviate the need for mortgage loan officers to decide whether or not to loan someone a million dollars(' worth of bitcoin) to buy a house, nor will it eliminate or even reduce military spending. So please stop insisting that you tally that up on the side of fiat, because that means you're no longer comparing apples and oranges.
- errantmind 5y ago
  Bitcoin is naturally deflationary. It encourages saving over spending, which suppresses frivolous consumption. I'd be curious to see how this compares to the energy consumption required to produce all the useless junk most people buy (including myself sometimes). I unironically believe a deflationary currency is the only way to avoid climate collapse. That could be Bitcoin or something else, but what it can't be is a central authority who has the option to infinitely increase the money supply to maintain 'economic growth'.
  - jcrben 5y ago
    It's not deflationary. The supply will increase for the next hundred years at least. The odds favor that this inflation, coupled with a lack of capital return, will underperform real investing. The proper comparison for "investing" in bitcoin is investing in stocks, many of which ARE deflationary by decreasing their shares outstanding every year. People are no more incentived to save by bitcoin than they are by real investment. To reiterate, it's been sound money mgmt to defer consumption and invest for the past few hundred years at least. The payment to bitcoin miners comes from bitcoin holders. At current prices it is billions of USD per year, paid out by inflation to burn fossil fuels. I'd rather get paid on my investment than pay.
    - errantmind 5y ago
      Your response lacks nuance. The supply 'increases' are already growing negligible as the current supply is 18.6mil / 21mil. Yes, it will continue to offer miners rewards, but that is cut in half every few years. People also lose their keys quite frequently. It is hard to estimate, but at some point 'misplaced' crypto will surpass the amount generated by block rewards, making it deflationary in a literal sense. Also, 'holders' are not paying miners. Miners make money from transactions, as well as block rewards. As for your stated preference, it is your freedom to avoid cryptocurrency, just don't obstruct other people's financial freedoms.
      - jcrben 5y ago
        The vast majority of miner profits come from "mining" new bitcoin, mostly using fossil fuels. These are then sold on the open market. There's a reason that in GAAP accounting, when a company issues new shares (dilution), it is recorded as a loss to the equity stockholders in the income statement. I see you didn't bother to respond to the point that people have always been better off saving than consuming. Bitcoin's cost is wealth destruction. That energy could be used for something with a real payback - housing, infrastructure, healthcare, technology - but is instead burned with nothing to show for it but extra carbon emissions and some landfilled junk gear. Have fun destroying the planet.
        errantmind 5y ago
        I didn't respond to that particular point because you are erroneously conflating saving with investing. Inflationary currencies gear economies towards 'growth' which is understood to be good but, without guidance / direction, this leads to frivolous spending, bubbles, and massive waste. How is this good for the environment? With a somewhat deflationary currency, an 'investment' worth putting money into has to be worth more than the money is appreciating in value. This cuts the fat as you have to be more picky as an investor, and banks have to be more picky as a lender. However, right now there is virtually no reason to save in this sense, you must throw your money at assets like equities or real estate to keep your purchasing power. You must feed the machine, so to speak. I think you'll find your argument on the wrong side of history when it comes to saving the planet from climate change. We need a drastic reduction in general consumption and waste while we work to reverse the damage we have done and find much more efficient means of production. We aren't going to get that without a total reversal of monetary policy, alongside strong fiscal incentives for climate conservation. It is far-fetched, but possible for a cryptocurrency to achieve this.
  - phil-m 5y ago
    You can achieve this without Proof of Work, but unfortunately Bitcoin will probably stay forever with this Consensus algorithm (considering the circumstances). Bitcoins energy consumption is disproportionate to the value for the societey it has.
    - jerry1979 5y ago
      How do you evaluate energy consumption vs value for society? Some see it this way: Bitcoin has a revolutionary potential to bring the global south out from under the financial thumb of the global north. We can see glimmers of this unfolding now in El Salvador as they implement Bitcoin as legal tender. Also, given that point-of-source green energy is cheaper & more politically stable than fossil fuels, shouldn't we expect to see greener and greener Bitcoin mining? In fact, China banned Bitcoin mining in it's coal regions and then more recently throughout the country. Meanwhile, El Salvador plans to build mining facilities using geo-thermal power.
apetrovic 5y ago
I never understood this argument. These employees are real, living people. Even if Bitcoin rules the world and VISA ceases to exist, these people will continue to go to (different) offices. So, isn't that extra energy expenditure not really tied to the banking system, it's just office work?

by kriz9 5y ago

Does that 148 kWh also consider the energy spent on running the offices, energy spend on commute for VISA employees and all the other things that keep this system working ?

jcranmer 5y ago

No, but neither does the 1200 kWh for Bitcoin also consider that energy. Bitcoin won't obviate the need for mortgage loan officers to decide whether or not to loan someone a million dollars(' worth of bitcoin) to buy a house, nor will it eliminate or even reduce military spending. So please stop insisting that you tally that up on the side of fiat, because that means you're no longer comparing apples and oranges.

errantmind 5y ago
Bitcoin is naturally deflationary. It encourages saving over spending, which suppresses frivolous consumption. I'd be curious to see how this compares to the energy consumption required to produce all the useless junk most people buy (including myself sometimes). I unironically believe a deflationary currency is the only way to avoid climate collapse. That could be Bitcoin or something else, but what it can't be is a central authority who has the option to infinitely increase the money supply to maintain 'economic growth'.
- jcrben 5y ago
  It's not deflationary. The supply will increase for the next hundred years at least. The odds favor that this inflation, coupled with a lack of capital return, will underperform real investing. The proper comparison for "investing" in bitcoin is investing in stocks, many of which ARE deflationary by decreasing their shares outstanding every year. People are no more incentived to save by bitcoin than they are by real investment. To reiterate, it's been sound money mgmt to defer consumption and invest for the past few hundred years at least. The payment to bitcoin miners comes from bitcoin holders. At current prices it is billions of USD per year, paid out by inflation to burn fossil fuels. I'd rather get paid on my investment than pay.
  - errantmind 5y ago
    Your response lacks nuance. The supply 'increases' are already growing negligible as the current supply is 18.6mil / 21mil. Yes, it will continue to offer miners rewards, but that is cut in half every few years. People also lose their keys quite frequently. It is hard to estimate, but at some point 'misplaced' crypto will surpass the amount generated by block rewards, making it deflationary in a literal sense. Also, 'holders' are not paying miners. Miners make money from transactions, as well as block rewards. As for your stated preference, it is your freedom to avoid cryptocurrency, just don't obstruct other people's financial freedoms.
    - jcrben 5y ago
      The vast majority of miner profits come from "mining" new bitcoin, mostly using fossil fuels. These are then sold on the open market. There's a reason that in GAAP accounting, when a company issues new shares (dilution), it is recorded as a loss to the equity stockholders in the income statement. I see you didn't bother to respond to the point that people have always been better off saving than consuming. Bitcoin's cost is wealth destruction. That energy could be used for something with a real payback - housing, infrastructure, healthcare, technology - but is instead burned with nothing to show for it but extra carbon emissions and some landfilled junk gear. Have fun destroying the planet.
      - errantmind 5y ago
        I didn't respond to that particular point because you are erroneously conflating saving with investing. Inflationary currencies gear economies towards 'growth' which is understood to be good but, without guidance / direction, this leads to frivolous spending, bubbles, and massive waste. How is this good for the environment? With a somewhat deflationary currency, an 'investment' worth putting money into has to be worth more than the money is appreciating in value. This cuts the fat as you have to be more picky as an investor, and banks have to be more picky as a lender. However, right now there is virtually no reason to save in this sense, you must throw your money at assets like equities or real estate to keep your purchasing power. You must feed the machine, so to speak. I think you'll find your argument on the wrong side of history when it comes to saving the planet from climate change. We need a drastic reduction in general consumption and waste while we work to reverse the damage we have done and find much more efficient means of production. We aren't going to get that without a total reversal of monetary policy, alongside strong fiscal incentives for climate conservation. It is far-fetched, but possible for a cryptocurrency to achieve this.
- phil-m 5y ago
  You can achieve this without Proof of Work, but unfortunately Bitcoin will probably stay forever with this Consensus algorithm (considering the circumstances). Bitcoins energy consumption is disproportionate to the value for the societey it has.
  - jerry1979 5y ago
    How do you evaluate energy consumption vs value for society? Some see it this way: Bitcoin has a revolutionary potential to bring the global south out from under the financial thumb of the global north. We can see glimmers of this unfolding now in El Salvador as they implement Bitcoin as legal tender. Also, given that point-of-source green energy is cheaper & more politically stable than fossil fuels, shouldn't we expect to see greener and greener Bitcoin mining? In fact, China banned Bitcoin mining in it's coal regions and then more recently throughout the country. Meanwhile, El Salvador plans to build mining facilities using geo-thermal power.

apetrovic 5y ago

I never understood this argument. These employees are real, living people. Even if Bitcoin rules the world and VISA ceases to exist, these people will continue to go to (different) offices. So, isn't that extra energy expenditure not really tied to the banking system, it's just office work?