6 ms·

Bitcoin's electricity use 8 times higher than Google's and Facebook's combined

41 points by bjourne 5y ago

prinzmaus 5y ago
Why is this not simply illegal?
- xutopia 5y ago
  I heat my basement with a mining rig. Why should that be illegal?
  - zeusk 5y ago
    The same reason for why you shouldn't be heating your basement with coal.
  - spankalee 5y ago
    And you turn it off when you don't actually need the heat, right? Right?
- crashpro 5y ago
  If you're paying for the electricity fairly, why should someone have a say in how you are using it? Electricity companies could limit these people, but they choose not to.
  - FooHentai 5y ago
    I agree with your point in principle but there are numerous examples where this kind of approach reaches major roadblocks. If you have limited energy generating capacity and that energy is depended upon for life essentials (e.g. heat, light) then there comes a point that ramping up energy price due to people being able to make a profit off the back of it means cutting off other people's access to life essentials because they are priced out. We see this elsewhere as well - For example, production of biofuel occupies productive farmland. If farmers can make more producing biofuel crops than food staples, they'll chase the money. This leads to a rise in food prices and pits the price and food against the price of fuel.
- avalys 5y ago
  There are many things that are wasteful and yet not illegal. Flying to Hawaii for vacation. Recreational powerboats. Keeping your thermostat at 72F in the winter and 68F in the summer. Buying a house larger than 3,000 square feet. Commuting to work in an SUV. Having more than 3 children. In general, we only make things illegal if they are harmful to others. Mere consumption of electricity is not harmful to others, except indirectly in the same way that the aforementioned activities are. Would you propose banning them too? If not, where do you draw the line, and who gets to interpret your prescription?
  - lelandfe 5y ago
    > If not, where do you draw the line, and who gets to interpret your prescription? These are both things to iron out in law later, not now in some philosophical way. Incandescent bulbs have been banned in countries around the world because of energy concerns. It's pretty clear that Bitcoin's energy usage is likewise a problem. Throwing our hands up and labeling calls for regulation around this a slippery slope doesn't help our climate criss.
    - avalys 5y ago
      If you want to do something about the climate crisis, do something about the climate crisis (e.g. a tax on carbon?) Don't single out something you don't like and ban it using the climate crisis as an excuse.
- mwattsun 5y ago
  It would be difficult to make it illegal in all jurisdictions in the world, so a 51% attack by a fed up nation state or states working together could shut it down. I am not an expert by any means, but it seems within the realm of possibily. With a per-unit consumption of 3250 W, that would put the electricity capacity needed to power all those ASICs at ~4.4 GW of power. That limits the possible candidates to pull off such a huge endeavor to powerful nation states who would work in coordination with large energy producers. (Jan 2020) https://braiins.com/blog/how-much-would-it-cost-to-51-attack-bitcoin https://braiins.com/blog/how-much-would-it-cost-to-51-attack...
tanto 5y ago
The next economic collapse might come when the whole crypo mania ends. Until than I guess we will reach far more energy usage. This will not be sustainable. If it continues we might solve the fermi paradox.
dang 5y ago
Ongoing related thread: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29769892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29769892 - Jan 2022 (292 comments)
csdvrx 5y ago
So what? People do things you might disagree about. It's called freedom, or live and let live. If you disagree with this use of electricity, ask yourself why. The reason most often cited is externality, like pollution or CO2. The solution is not banning, as they are many equally "wasteful" use of electricity, like gaming, and 1kW used for gaming will produce just as much pollution as 1kW used for mining. So why differentiate between these uses? Who's to say gaming is better that mining? (even if I prefer the former, why I should impose my preferences on others?) You can't legislate what people do on their own free time with things that they buy, like electricity. If you are really worried about the environment, the only real solution is taxes applied to the price of electricity, because Aluminum smoldering is just as polluting.
- speedgoose 5y ago
  Sorry but no, you don't have the freedom to kill people. You must not have the freedom to blatantly destroy the planet for your own little profits.
  - csdvrx 5y ago
    How does this relate (even remotely) to my comment? Killing is illegal. Buying electricity is legal. Aluminum smoldering and gaming and heating and everything else are equally polluting per kW used. And FYI I haven't mined for a long time. And if I ever do it again, it would be to preserve my GPU, as the heatshocks between gaming and not gaming might reduce its lifespan, which would cause me to replace it and thus pollute more due to the amount of raw materials used when making electronics products.
- newaccount2021 5y ago
- Traster 5y ago
  >People do things you might disagree about. It's called freedom, or live and let live. You have the freedom to do a lot of things. You can go and play in traffic if you really want. Everyone else has the freedom to call you an idiot and shout at you for how stupid and inconsiderate you're being. Let's assume your comparison holds, and 1kw gaming== 1kw mining, atleast the gamer was happy for the hours of gaming he played, rather than the miner who basically just pushed more money into the slots machine. >You can't legislate what people do on their own free time with things that they buy, like electricity. You actually can. We actually do. Authoritarian regimes do it at the drop of a hat, but even free democracies ban activities they view as purely destructive. It's important to remember, people need energy to heat their homes and not die, and we're not going to pretend that's an equally useful application of energy as bitcoin mining.
santiagobasulto 5y ago
For a bunch of us, living in 3rd world countries, Bitcoin provides more value than Google and Facebook. So I think this is ok. I don’t know why the post has a derogatory connotation.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  What kind of value?
  - Traster 5y ago
    Huge volatility and first world kids willing to gamble.
  - GaveDrohl 5y ago
    In countries like Venzuela and Turkey and numerous others where skyrocketing inflation and the devaluation of the country's currency is an ongoing concern, bitcoin even in spite of it's volatility provides a safehaven. Some countries ban the US dollar, some don't offer access to banking/loans. Bitcoin, Ethereum and others help solve that. It also allows them to receive monetary assistance from relatives outside the country when such transfers otherwise are not allowed. I'm not an expert and may have a detail or two off, but for anyone willing to learn more, I'd recommend the podcast from Lex Friedman and Alex Gladstein for more eye opening details.
- wmf 5y ago
  Now imagine if you could get the same value without using significant energy: it's called PoS.
  - clay-dreidels 5y ago
    PoS is too centralized and vulnerable to attack.
  - sauwan 5y ago
    Or proof of space.
- 5y ago
tromp 5y ago
> A single transaction requires an average of 1,173 kWh, enough to power a typical UK home for more than three months This is somewhat misleading, as the vast majority of that energy expense is competing for newly minted coins, i.e. the block subsidy. It will take a few more decades for transaction fees to overtake the exponentially decreasing block subsidy and become the dominant part of the block reward. At that point it becomes more accurate to attribute Bitcoin's energy costs to the processing of transactions. Also note that if Bitcoin were actually used as a currency (like in early Silk Road days) rather than a speculation vehicle as it mostly is now, then its price would remain orders of magnitude lower, and few people would be complaining about its energy costs.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smegsicle 5y ago
are they implying that if bitcoin used 1/8 the electricity it uses now, it would be less of a drain on society than google and facebook combined?

41 points by bjourne 5y ago

prinzmaus 5y ago

Why is this not simply illegal?

xutopia 5y ago
I heat my basement with a mining rig. Why should that be illegal?
- zeusk 5y ago
  The same reason for why you shouldn't be heating your basement with coal.
- spankalee 5y ago
  And you turn it off when you don't actually need the heat, right? Right?
crashpro 5y ago
If you're paying for the electricity fairly, why should someone have a say in how you are using it? Electricity companies could limit these people, but they choose not to.
- FooHentai 5y ago
  I agree with your point in principle but there are numerous examples where this kind of approach reaches major roadblocks. If you have limited energy generating capacity and that energy is depended upon for life essentials (e.g. heat, light) then there comes a point that ramping up energy price due to people being able to make a profit off the back of it means cutting off other people's access to life essentials because they are priced out. We see this elsewhere as well - For example, production of biofuel occupies productive farmland. If farmers can make more producing biofuel crops than food staples, they'll chase the money. This leads to a rise in food prices and pits the price and food against the price of fuel.
avalys 5y ago
There are many things that are wasteful and yet not illegal. Flying to Hawaii for vacation. Recreational powerboats. Keeping your thermostat at 72F in the winter and 68F in the summer. Buying a house larger than 3,000 square feet. Commuting to work in an SUV. Having more than 3 children. In general, we only make things illegal if they are harmful to others. Mere consumption of electricity is not harmful to others, except indirectly in the same way that the aforementioned activities are. Would you propose banning them too? If not, where do you draw the line, and who gets to interpret your prescription?
- lelandfe 5y ago
  > If not, where do you draw the line, and who gets to interpret your prescription? These are both things to iron out in law later, not now in some philosophical way. Incandescent bulbs have been banned in countries around the world because of energy concerns. It's pretty clear that Bitcoin's energy usage is likewise a problem. Throwing our hands up and labeling calls for regulation around this a slippery slope doesn't help our climate criss.
  - avalys 5y ago
    If you want to do something about the climate crisis, do something about the climate crisis (e.g. a tax on carbon?) Don't single out something you don't like and ban it using the climate crisis as an excuse.
mwattsun 5y ago
It would be difficult to make it illegal in all jurisdictions in the world, so a 51% attack by a fed up nation state or states working together could shut it down. I am not an expert by any means, but it seems within the realm of possibily. With a per-unit consumption of 3250 W, that would put the electricity capacity needed to power all those ASICs at ~4.4 GW of power. That limits the possible candidates to pull off such a huge endeavor to powerful nation states who would work in coordination with large energy producers. (Jan 2020) https://braiins.com/blog/how-much-would-it-cost-to-51-attack-bitcoin https://braiins.com/blog/how-much-would-it-cost-to-51-attack...

tanto 5y ago

The next economic collapse might come when the whole crypo mania ends. Until than I guess we will reach far more energy usage. This will not be sustainable. If it continues we might solve the fermi paradox.

dang 5y ago

Ongoing related thread: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29769892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29769892 - Jan 2022 (292 comments)

csdvrx 5y ago

So what? People do things you might disagree about. It's called freedom, or live and let live. If you disagree with this use of electricity, ask yourself why. The reason most often cited is externality, like pollution or CO2. The solution is not banning, as they are many equally "wasteful" use of electricity, like gaming, and 1kW used for gaming will produce just as much pollution as 1kW used for mining. So why differentiate between these uses? Who's to say gaming is better that mining? (even if I prefer the former, why I should impose my preferences on others?) You can't legislate what people do on their own free time with things that they buy, like electricity. If you are really worried about the environment, the only real solution is taxes applied to the price of electricity, because Aluminum smoldering is just as polluting.

speedgoose 5y ago
Sorry but no, you don't have the freedom to kill people. You must not have the freedom to blatantly destroy the planet for your own little profits.
- csdvrx 5y ago
  How does this relate (even remotely) to my comment? Killing is illegal. Buying electricity is legal. Aluminum smoldering and gaming and heating and everything else are equally polluting per kW used. And FYI I haven't mined for a long time. And if I ever do it again, it would be to preserve my GPU, as the heatshocks between gaming and not gaming might reduce its lifespan, which would cause me to replace it and thus pollute more due to the amount of raw materials used when making electronics products.
newaccount2021 5y ago
Traster 5y ago
>People do things you might disagree about. It's called freedom, or live and let live. You have the freedom to do a lot of things. You can go and play in traffic if you really want. Everyone else has the freedom to call you an idiot and shout at you for how stupid and inconsiderate you're being. Let's assume your comparison holds, and 1kw gaming== 1kw mining, atleast the gamer was happy for the hours of gaming he played, rather than the miner who basically just pushed more money into the slots machine. >You can't legislate what people do on their own free time with things that they buy, like electricity. You actually can. We actually do. Authoritarian regimes do it at the drop of a hat, but even free democracies ban activities they view as purely destructive. It's important to remember, people need energy to heat their homes and not die, and we're not going to pretend that's an equally useful application of energy as bitcoin mining.

santiagobasulto 5y ago

For a bunch of us, living in 3rd world countries, Bitcoin provides more value than Google and Facebook. So I think this is ok. I don’t know why the post has a derogatory connotation.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
What kind of value?
- Traster 5y ago
  Huge volatility and first world kids willing to gamble.
- GaveDrohl 5y ago
  In countries like Venzuela and Turkey and numerous others where skyrocketing inflation and the devaluation of the country's currency is an ongoing concern, bitcoin even in spite of it's volatility provides a safehaven. Some countries ban the US dollar, some don't offer access to banking/loans. Bitcoin, Ethereum and others help solve that. It also allows them to receive monetary assistance from relatives outside the country when such transfers otherwise are not allowed. I'm not an expert and may have a detail or two off, but for anyone willing to learn more, I'd recommend the podcast from Lex Friedman and Alex Gladstein for more eye opening details.
wmf 5y ago
Now imagine if you could get the same value without using significant energy: it's called PoS.
- clay-dreidels 5y ago
  PoS is too centralized and vulnerable to attack.
- sauwan 5y ago
  Or proof of space.
5y ago

tromp 5y ago

> A single transaction requires an average of 1,173 kWh, enough to power a typical UK home for more than three months This is somewhat misleading, as the vast majority of that energy expense is competing for newly minted coins, i.e. the block subsidy. It will take a few more decades for transaction fees to overtake the exponentially decreasing block subsidy and become the dominant part of the block reward. At that point it becomes more accurate to attribute Bitcoin's energy costs to the processing of transactions. Also note that if Bitcoin were actually used as a currency (like in early Silk Road days) rather than a speculation vehicle as it mostly is now, then its price would remain orders of magnitude lower, and few people would be complaining about its energy costs.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

smegsicle 5y ago

are they implying that if bitcoin used 1/8 the electricity it uses now, it would be less of a drain on society than google and facebook combined?