3 ms·

> The solution is to invest in more solar, nuclear, and energy storage solutions. > The energy problem isn't unique to Bitcoin. The unique problem with Bitcoi

> The solution is to invest in more solar, nuclear, and energy storage solutions. > The energy problem isn't unique to Bitcoin. The unique problem with Bitcoin and PoW in general is that its energy usage is inversely proportional to the cost of energy. If the total value of Bitcoins mined every day is $X, collectively Bitcoin miners will use just a little less than $X of power every day. That means that any time we do improve our energy infrastructure, by increasing supply with more renewable sources or reducing demand via efficiency improvements elsewhere (all of which reduce energy prices) Bitcoin mining becomes much more profitable, miners expand and new miners appear, and PoW's energy usage goes up accordingly to use as much power as they can possibly afford (up to $X). This isn't true for anything else - there's no other industry that so directly turns energy into money without limits. While there is a relationship to other energy usage, if energy drops to 1/100th of its current price, people don't start heating their houses 100x more, they don't start gaming on 100x more power-hungry computers, and they don't start taking 100x more flights than they do today, because in each case, there are significant other limits and marginal costs involved. PoW meanwhile will absolutely increase its power usage by 100x, as fast as the network possibly can. This is why PoW's energy usage is a unique problem.

mattnewton 5y ago
> This isn't true for anything else - there's no other industry that so directly turns energy into money without limits. Aluminum refining maybe, but even then you are going to run out of ore to turn into aluminum. This really highlights how novel the mining economics are.
- Nevermark 5y ago
  Refining more aluminum at a lower energy cost is a societal gain. Using more cheaper energy to hit a higher difficulty to protect the same network isn't a societal gain in the same way. I.e. aluminum still follows the normal supply-demand curve even if it is highly sensitive to energy prices They both suffer from the negative energy externalities, but you get something more with higher aluminum production. You get more aluminum.
Vetch 5y ago
You make good points on how bitcoin could grow to use a larger share of generated energy even without increases in its exchange price, but don't forget Andy and Bill's law: "what Andy giveth, Bill taketh away". More generally, the Rebound effect suggests other expansions will consume a sizeable portion of efficiency gains (or possibly exceed it). Video gamers will want higher res VR devices, they'll want richer worlds with better physics, animation, AI units and high fps high resolution graphics. AI software is absolutely guaranteed to use up any 100x gain in efficiency and more will be demanded of computers. A backfire effect is predicted as possible if new capabilities once discarded as infeasible open up (ala aluminum smelting, constant use of AC) and when new economic activity generated by gains in efficiency results in a larger number of wealthier participants. Such effects from efficiency gains are fine so long as they're focused on energy and not say, polluting fuel use efficiency. Buckminster Fuller proposed ephemeralization as the manner in which prosperity could increase given growing population and finite resources. This takes place because as material use decreases; information, computation and energy use intensity increase as more activity is displaced into them.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  TL;DR; the comment above yours is absolutely wrong about having 100x more energy won't bring 100x more flights. If my car could expend 100x more energy, it would be easily able to fly, so everyone would probably start flying as their regular commute.
ichydkrsrnae 5y ago
https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ The author's opinion on this topic is that energy arguments are basically bunk, but she doesn't mention the scaling you do. I'm unequipped to judge who's right.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  Most energy arguments are little more than hot takes, speculating on what might happen in hypothetical worlds where the cost of energy behaves in a way that it literally has never behaved in human history. The efficiency of energy production, storage, and transmission has always been and will always be the fundamental anchor of worldwide economic growth.
jkhdigital 5y ago
PoW also requires ASICs, and as the recent semiconductor shortage illustrates there are definitely limits to how much supply that industry can crank out. Mining rigs depreciate and must be replaced eventually, so it’s not like the supply can just grow without bound either.

mattnewton 5y ago

> This isn't true for anything else - there's no other industry that so directly turns energy into money without limits. Aluminum refining maybe, but even then you are going to run out of ore to turn into aluminum. This really highlights how novel the mining economics are.

Nevermark 5y ago
Refining more aluminum at a lower energy cost is a societal gain. Using more cheaper energy to hit a higher difficulty to protect the same network isn't a societal gain in the same way. I.e. aluminum still follows the normal supply-demand curve even if it is highly sensitive to energy prices They both suffer from the negative energy externalities, but you get something more with higher aluminum production. You get more aluminum.

Vetch 5y ago

You make good points on how bitcoin could grow to use a larger share of generated energy even without increases in its exchange price, but don't forget Andy and Bill's law: "what Andy giveth, Bill taketh away". More generally, the Rebound effect suggests other expansions will consume a sizeable portion of efficiency gains (or possibly exceed it). Video gamers will want higher res VR devices, they'll want richer worlds with better physics, animation, AI units and high fps high resolution graphics. AI software is absolutely guaranteed to use up any 100x gain in efficiency and more will be demanded of computers. A backfire effect is predicted as possible if new capabilities once discarded as infeasible open up (ala aluminum smelting, constant use of AC) and when new economic activity generated by gains in efficiency results in a larger number of wealthier participants. Such effects from efficiency gains are fine so long as they're focused on energy and not say, polluting fuel use efficiency. Buckminster Fuller proposed ephemeralization as the manner in which prosperity could increase given growing population and finite resources. This takes place because as material use decreases; information, computation and energy use intensity increase as more activity is displaced into them.

lostmsu 5y ago
TL;DR; the comment above yours is absolutely wrong about having 100x more energy won't bring 100x more flights. If my car could expend 100x more energy, it would be easily able to fly, so everyone would probably start flying as their regular commute.

ichydkrsrnae 5y ago

https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ The author's opinion on this topic is that energy arguments are basically bunk, but she doesn't mention the scaling you do. I'm unequipped to judge who's right.

jkhdigital 5y ago
Most energy arguments are little more than hot takes, speculating on what might happen in hypothetical worlds where the cost of energy behaves in a way that it literally has never behaved in human history. The efficiency of energy production, storage, and transmission has always been and will always be the fundamental anchor of worldwide economic growth.

jkhdigital 5y ago

PoW also requires ASICs, and as the recent semiconductor shortage illustrates there are definitely limits to how much supply that industry can crank out. Mining rigs depreciate and must be replaced eventually, so it’s not like the supply can just grow without bound either.