3 ms·
The most aggressive estimates I've seen are below 1% (maybe around half), which is quite literally a rounding error. Don't get me wrong I agree it's a lot, but
by doopy1 5y ago
The most aggressive estimates I've seen are below 1% (maybe around half), which is quite literally a rounding error. Don't get me wrong I agree it's a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket on the global scale.
What about the fact that china is pumping out something like 1/3rd of the world's emissions?
What about excess livestock?
FWIW - I do agree that PoW is not ideal and will largely be phased out, but there are lower hanging fruit with regards to our climate change crisis than cryptocurrencies.
- pcthrowaway 5y agoThere are things within our control and things that aren't. Driving up the price of bitcoin will lead to more energy consumption, so I don't buy it, even though it might lead to juicy gains. Livestock also lead to excessive greenhouse gas emissions, so I don't buy it either, even if it could lead to juicy steak. Lots of lower cap proof of stake cryptos (and Ethereum, which is moving to Proof of Stake) are likely to outperform bitcoin in terms of percentage gains anyway.
- doopy1 5y agoI agree with you. I'm not talking about bitcoin, but crypto as a whole.
- refenestrator 5y agoIn the neighborhood of 1 percent of all energy consumption, for literally nothing, is a colossal waste. Try to think of it in tons of coal. You proud of that?
- doopy1 5y ago"literally nothing" is your opinion.
- refenestrator 5y agoIt's a fact at the macro level. Individual speculators may profit but there's no benefit to the species. They don't even work as currencies because the transaction costs are so high.
- pcthrowaway 5y agoThere are cryptocurrencies where transaction fees (I'm assuming that's what you meant by 'costs') are actually very low, if not zero (see Nano). The 'costs' of proof of work are indeed high though. The amount of energy consumed for one bitcoin transaction to happen is astounding. My point above is that there are numerous alternatives (which in my opinion are poised to topple bitcoin), which don't have these costs. I disagree with 'no benefit to the species' (even bitcoin has many benefits). But the costs of bitcoin are also high, and the benefits can come without those costs.
- refenestrator 5y agoThe benefits are unrealized fanatasies about freedom from government that will never, ever happen. The government, tax, justice systems and regulatory bodies are made out of people, you can't fool them with some "haha it's not USD" technicality like a sovereign citizen. It's all the same at the end except for a bunch of wasted energy.
- doopy1 5y agoCryptocurrency is programmable money. People interact with each other using money all day, and this is a technology that augments human interaction. Just because the most vocal narrative are the unrealized fantasies you mention, doesn't mean there's not a benefit to this technology. Frankly, I'm shocked how the supposedly future thinking tech crowd on HN lacks so much creativity when it comes to cryptocurrency. Anyway, it's here to stay for a long time even if they legislate it to oblivion.
- pcthrowaway 5y agoThank you, my response would have been along the same lines. Regulation will come, but it's not going to be a united global front. From an economic perspective, stifling innovation is problematic, and countries that embrace the potential of cryptocurrency are going to reap rewards. Even though there are a fair share of 'sovereign citizens' among cryptocurrency types, there are many who just see the potential for integration with existing infrastructure. Personally I'm more socialist-leaning, and want governments to embrace technology that will also empower them to provide sweeping social benefits for their citizens in a transparent way.