3 ms·

Bitcoin is a disaster for the environment.

by speedgoose 5y ago

deregulateMed 5y ago
Only if people use fossil fuels. Armored bank vehicles are bad for the environment too.
- tveita 5y ago
  It is bad regardless what fuel you use. Bitcoin uses a proof-of-waste system which scales to any amount of resources available. If some day we had nearly limitless energy from fusion reactors and ran the economy on Bitcoin, there would be a race to strip mine the planet to build more reactors whose output would be wasted to capture the same fixed slice of the mining pie. If this conclusion sounds absurd we should reconsider the premise that Bitcoin deserves any kind of place in our society. > Armored bank vehicles are bad for the environment too. A negligible part of the traffic on the road are bank vehicles, and they don't carry a large part of global wealth. Dollars can be efficiently transferred over the internet now, because the banking system, however slow and fossilised, actually has incentive to reduce waste, unlike Bitcoin.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  Fossil fuel plant reactivated and expanded solely to run transaction validation for cryptocurrencies. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkby7z/a-fossil-fuel-power-plant-that-mines-bitcoin-is-about-to-massively-expand https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkby7z/a-fossil-fuel-power-p...
consider_the 5y ago
There is a convincing argument that the reverse is true. Namely that "Bitcoin incentivices renewable energy": https://assets.ctfassets.net/2d5q1td6cyxq/5mRjc9X5LTXFFihIlTt7QK/e7bcba47217b60423a01a357e036105e/BCEI_White_Paper.pdf https://assets.ctfassets.net/2d5q1td6cyxq/5mRjc9X5LTXFFihIlT...
- ohgodplsno 5y ago
  It's a convincing lie. The reality is: * Bitcoin incentivises _cheap energy_. If burning coal is 10 times cheaper than renewables, shitcoiners will burn coal * The renewables that may be built are not built for the greater good, for public usage. Only to mine more coin, to make more money, to make more solar panels, to mine more coins, etc. The carbon cost of these renewables is abysmal. * The only positive point it _may_ bring would be making renewables cheaper, but considering the shitcoin vultures are trying to go waste electricity from any source, including attempting to screw Iceland over, the likelihood of this happening is close to zero.
  - consider_the 5y ago
    From the linked resource: "Without bitcoin mining, solar - an intermittent energy source - could supply only 40% of grid power before utilities would face the need to fund significant investments with higher electricity prices. With bitcoin mining integrated into a solar system however, energy providers - whether utilities or independent entities - would have the ability to play the arbitrage between electricity prices and bitcoin prices, as well as potentially sell the “surplus” solar and supply almost all grid power demands without lowering profitability."
  - paulgb 5y ago
    I bet 30 years from now, Square's pro-crypto whitepapers will be seen in the same light as the pro-cigarette ads from yesteryear arguing that, actually, smoking is good for you and second-hand smoke is not harmful.

Bitcoin is a disaster for the environment.

deregulateMed 5y ago

Only if people use fossil fuels. Armored bank vehicles are bad for the environment too.

tveita 5y ago
It is bad regardless what fuel you use. Bitcoin uses a proof-of-waste system which scales to any amount of resources available. If some day we had nearly limitless energy from fusion reactors and ran the economy on Bitcoin, there would be a race to strip mine the planet to build more reactors whose output would be wasted to capture the same fixed slice of the mining pie. If this conclusion sounds absurd we should reconsider the premise that Bitcoin deserves any kind of place in our society. > Armored bank vehicles are bad for the environment too. A negligible part of the traffic on the road are bank vehicles, and they don't carry a large part of global wealth. Dollars can be efficiently transferred over the internet now, because the banking system, however slow and fossilised, actually has incentive to reduce waste, unlike Bitcoin.
MereInterest 5y ago
Fossil fuel plant reactivated and expanded solely to run transaction validation for cryptocurrencies. https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkby7z/a-fossil-fuel-power-plant-that-mines-bitcoin-is-about-to-massively-expand https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkby7z/a-fossil-fuel-power-p...

consider_the 5y ago

There is a convincing argument that the reverse is true. Namely that "Bitcoin incentivices renewable energy": https://assets.ctfassets.net/2d5q1td6cyxq/5mRjc9X5LTXFFihIlTt7QK/e7bcba47217b60423a01a357e036105e/BCEI_White_Paper.pdf https://assets.ctfassets.net/2d5q1td6cyxq/5mRjc9X5LTXFFihIlT...

ohgodplsno 5y ago
It's a convincing lie. The reality is: * Bitcoin incentivises _cheap energy_. If burning coal is 10 times cheaper than renewables, shitcoiners will burn coal * The renewables that may be built are not built for the greater good, for public usage. Only to mine more coin, to make more money, to make more solar panels, to mine more coins, etc. The carbon cost of these renewables is abysmal. * The only positive point it _may_ bring would be making renewables cheaper, but considering the shitcoin vultures are trying to go waste electricity from any source, including attempting to screw Iceland over, the likelihood of this happening is close to zero.
- consider_the 5y ago
  From the linked resource: "Without bitcoin mining, solar - an intermittent energy source - could supply only 40% of grid power before utilities would face the need to fund significant investments with higher electricity prices. With bitcoin mining integrated into a solar system however, energy providers - whether utilities or independent entities - would have the ability to play the arbitrage between electricity prices and bitcoin prices, as well as potentially sell the “surplus” solar and supply almost all grid power demands without lowering profitability."
- paulgb 5y ago
  I bet 30 years from now, Square's pro-crypto whitepapers will be seen in the same light as the pro-cigarette ads from yesteryear arguing that, actually, smoking is good for you and second-hand smoke is not harmful.