4 ms·

A while ago, I asked folks if PoW happened entirely off-Earth using the Sun. Predictably, that was still a problem to some people which, to me, says everything.

toss1 5y ago
"folks" is not me, that is certainly not the point I was making, and your "predictability" indicates that your comment is no less based on fact-free as those you criticize. Obviously, if the mining is done off-earth anywhere, it will not contribute to the CO2 problem, =ASSUMING= that it does not require on-earth energy resources to put the power generation there. Crypto mining also stops being a problem when 100% of on-Earth power generation is de-carbonized — in that situation, it is no longer diverting energy generation that could be used to displace/reduce remaining CO2-spewing energy generation. The problem is: While CO2 power generation is still active, and especially when it dominates, every kW of electricity used for crypto mining either directly generates CO2, or it uses clean generation that could otherwise (but now does NOT) displace a kW of CO2-based generation capacity.
- politician 5y ago
  OK, “Crypto is bad until the entire grid is decarbonized” is a reasonable position. It’s not airtight: there are a number of grids and they aren’t all interconnected, but at least it’s on the right track.
  - toss1 5y ago
    Yes, I agree, and was thinking something like that after I wrote - the range is not actually global, but basically grid-scale. For example, if the Texas grid became ~100% wind and other clean-source-powered, then BTC mining in that grid would not in any practical sense consume clean power that could otherwise displace dirty power. The 100kW you use to feed your miners could in theory be used to reduce production from a nearby coal plan in Oklahoma, but in practice, since the grids are not connected, they aren't, so that is probably the right scale. That said, if it gets big and the miners are consuming enough production of solar panels and wind turbines to slow clean energy buildout on other grids, that's the second order of the same problem. So, maybe everyone with crypto should, instead of convening to buy the constitution or a basketball team, go fund the takeover and conversion of an entire grid to clean energy, and build all the miners there.
    - politician 5y ago
      > So, maybe everyone with crypto should, instead of convening to buy the constitution or a basketball team, go fund the takeover and conversion of an entire grid to clean energy, and build all the miners there. Agreed. > That said, if it gets big and the miners are consuming enough production of solar panels and wind turbines to slow clean energy buildout on other grids, that's the second order of the same problem. True, but even that's not zero-sum: demand drives investment in production which increases supply leading to commoditization. Commoditization, in turn, makes the solution (solar, wind components) more accessible to a broader range of the economy. GPUs for machine learning wouldn't be where they are today if it wasn't for gamers creating a demand floor that subsidized the research into better hardware.

toss1 5y ago

"folks" is not me, that is certainly not the point I was making, and your "predictability" indicates that your comment is no less based on fact-free as those you criticize. Obviously, if the mining is done off-earth anywhere, it will not contribute to the CO2 problem, =ASSUMING= that it does not require on-earth energy resources to put the power generation there. Crypto mining also stops being a problem when 100% of on-Earth power generation is de-carbonized — in that situation, it is no longer diverting energy generation that could be used to displace/reduce remaining CO2-spewing energy generation. The problem is: While CO2 power generation is still active, and especially when it dominates, every kW of electricity used for crypto mining either directly generates CO2, or it uses clean generation that could otherwise (but now does NOT) displace a kW of CO2-based generation capacity.

politician 5y ago
OK, “Crypto is bad until the entire grid is decarbonized” is a reasonable position. It’s not airtight: there are a number of grids and they aren’t all interconnected, but at least it’s on the right track.
- toss1 5y ago
  Yes, I agree, and was thinking something like that after I wrote - the range is not actually global, but basically grid-scale. For example, if the Texas grid became ~100% wind and other clean-source-powered, then BTC mining in that grid would not in any practical sense consume clean power that could otherwise displace dirty power. The 100kW you use to feed your miners could in theory be used to reduce production from a nearby coal plan in Oklahoma, but in practice, since the grids are not connected, they aren't, so that is probably the right scale. That said, if it gets big and the miners are consuming enough production of solar panels and wind turbines to slow clean energy buildout on other grids, that's the second order of the same problem. So, maybe everyone with crypto should, instead of convening to buy the constitution or a basketball team, go fund the takeover and conversion of an entire grid to clean energy, and build all the miners there.
  - politician 5y ago
    > So, maybe everyone with crypto should, instead of convening to buy the constitution or a basketball team, go fund the takeover and conversion of an entire grid to clean energy, and build all the miners there. Agreed. > That said, if it gets big and the miners are consuming enough production of solar panels and wind turbines to slow clean energy buildout on other grids, that's the second order of the same problem. True, but even that's not zero-sum: demand drives investment in production which increases supply leading to commoditization. Commoditization, in turn, makes the solution (solar, wind components) more accessible to a broader range of the economy. GPUs for machine learning wouldn't be where they are today if it wasn't for gamers creating a demand floor that subsidized the research into better hardware.