4 ms·

> mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest The cheapest energy is the cheapest. It has nothing directly to do with it be

> mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest The cheapest energy is the cheapest. It has nothing directly to do with it being renewable.

dan-robertson 5y ago
Right. The point is that you get renewable energy which is desirable rather than non-renewable energy. If the latter were cheaper the situation would be less appealing.
- righttoolforjob 5y ago
  If it was cheaper there would be no need for bitcoin as a driver (and then also to completely waste it, in the broken window fallacy sense).
  - dan-robertson 5y ago
    I feel like we’re talking past each other. I’m not saying we should want bitcoin wasting a bunch of power. I’m saying there could be positive outcomes to that power suddenly becoming available.
d0gbread 5y ago
I'm interpreting your comment as: x = x As if that's insightful. But in the spirit of HN, can you say more? My understanding is that renewables are the cheapest and will likely continue to trend in that direction, causation or not. So are you suggesting maybe there's a chance of a super inexpensive non-renewable overtaking this trend?
- righttoolforjob 5y ago
  I was responding to someone's argument along the lines of mining needs energy, the cheapest energy is renewable, therefore mining would drive an increase in the supply of renewable energy, and a forthcoming decline of mining would free up a supply of renewable energy. I broke this chain of logic by pointing out that renewable is an unnecessary consideration and that mining activities will choose the cheapest option regardless of its renewability. Furthermore I claim that renewable is not the cheapest. Various subsidies aside, renewable is often many times more expensive to deliver where and when required. The total system cost is many times higher.
  - dan-robertson 5y ago
    I’m really struggling to understand what you’ve written. I certainly don’t feel like my “chain of logic” has been broken. Maybe I just don’t understand your argument. Or maybe I’m just being stupid. To be clear, I think: - having surplus (or cheaper) energy is good - generating relatively more energy through renewable resources is good - renewable energy is cheaper and so lower energy prices promote renewable energy more (but also reduce the supply in general) - Current bitcoin mining increases demand and therefore generation and, to some extent, prices while supply catches up - a drop in bitcoin mining would lead to a surplus of (renewable) energy which I think would be good Can you help me find what the source of confusion is?

> mining needs the cheapest energy and renewable energy is generally the cheapest The cheapest energy is the cheapest. It has nothing directly to do with it being renewable.

dan-robertson 5y ago

Right. The point is that you get renewable energy which is desirable rather than non-renewable energy. If the latter were cheaper the situation would be less appealing.

righttoolforjob 5y ago
If it was cheaper there would be no need for bitcoin as a driver (and then also to completely waste it, in the broken window fallacy sense).
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  I feel like we’re talking past each other. I’m not saying we should want bitcoin wasting a bunch of power. I’m saying there could be positive outcomes to that power suddenly becoming available.

d0gbread 5y ago

I'm interpreting your comment as: x = x As if that's insightful. But in the spirit of HN, can you say more? My understanding is that renewables are the cheapest and will likely continue to trend in that direction, causation or not. So are you suggesting maybe there's a chance of a super inexpensive non-renewable overtaking this trend?

righttoolforjob 5y ago
I was responding to someone's argument along the lines of mining needs energy, the cheapest energy is renewable, therefore mining would drive an increase in the supply of renewable energy, and a forthcoming decline of mining would free up a supply of renewable energy. I broke this chain of logic by pointing out that renewable is an unnecessary consideration and that mining activities will choose the cheapest option regardless of its renewability. Furthermore I claim that renewable is not the cheapest. Various subsidies aside, renewable is often many times more expensive to deliver where and when required. The total system cost is many times higher.
- dan-robertson 5y ago
  I’m really struggling to understand what you’ve written. I certainly don’t feel like my “chain of logic” has been broken. Maybe I just don’t understand your argument. Or maybe I’m just being stupid. To be clear, I think: - having surplus (or cheaper) energy is good - generating relatively more energy through renewable resources is good - renewable energy is cheaper and so lower energy prices promote renewable energy more (but also reduce the supply in general) - Current bitcoin mining increases demand and therefore generation and, to some extent, prices while supply catches up - a drop in bitcoin mining would lead to a surplus of (renewable) energy which I think would be good Can you help me find what the source of confusion is?