4 ms·

I think his objections is what the transactions to do this with the cryptocurrency consume a massive amount of energy and there by contribute to global warming.

zagrebian 5y ago
The transactions? I thought it’s the mining that consumes all the energy.
- Gigachad 5y ago
  The transactions add value to the network which incentivises mining.
- xigoi 5y ago
  The purpose of mining is to confirm transactions.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  "Mining" means adding transactions to the blockchain. Ad absurdum, if no one transacted bitcoin, there would be nothing to mine. And contrary to what some claim, given Bitcoin's fixed block size and a few other constrained parameters, there is a very clear (and enormous) electrical power cost per transaction (with some range given that transactions are not fixed size - the more participants in a single transaction, and the more metadata, the higher the power cost per transaction).
  - incrudible 5y ago
    Mining means finding the hash for the next block. Mining empty blocks if there are no transactions is perfectly fine. The expected size of a block makes no difference to power consumption. The only relevant parameter is the point at which it becomes unprofitable. You could argue that if less fees were spent, some barely profitable mining rigs would be turned off in anticipation. However, Bitcoin is not at the point were fees are decisive yet.
cardanome 5y ago
This assumes that higher efficiency leads to lower total consumption of energy, the data says otherwise. [1] It is interesting that "saving energy" has been established as a dogma that does not even get questioned. I guess the propaganda by big energy monopolists about "carbon footprint" was very successful. Currently nearly the whole world is running a economic system that is based on economic growth and leads to maximizing resource consumption. Sure using resources efficiently does increase the value society can gain from them but not total consumption. If you stop Bitcoin, people will find other means to use the excess energy. The reasonable way to solve this is to make energy PRODUCTION stop using fossil fuels anymore. Simple as that. That is why we need to keep talking about our carbon footprints so we don't take any action that might go against the interest of certain corporations. [1] > The data and analyses presented here show that historically, over long time periods, improvements in efficiency have not succeeded in outpacing increases in the quantity of goods and services provided. https://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/readings/DahmusGutowskiEfficiency.pdf https://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/readings/DahmusGutowskiEfficie...
- VectorLock 5y ago
  Although reducing fossil fuel consumption is good, reducing energy consumption offsets the negative ecological effects from any kind of power production. Like when they say "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle; in that order" for recycling.

zagrebian 5y ago

The transactions? I thought it’s the mining that consumes all the energy.

Gigachad 5y ago
The transactions add value to the network which incentivises mining.
xigoi 5y ago
The purpose of mining is to confirm transactions.
tsimionescu 5y ago
"Mining" means adding transactions to the blockchain. Ad absurdum, if no one transacted bitcoin, there would be nothing to mine. And contrary to what some claim, given Bitcoin's fixed block size and a few other constrained parameters, there is a very clear (and enormous) electrical power cost per transaction (with some range given that transactions are not fixed size - the more participants in a single transaction, and the more metadata, the higher the power cost per transaction).
- incrudible 5y ago
  Mining means finding the hash for the next block. Mining empty blocks if there are no transactions is perfectly fine. The expected size of a block makes no difference to power consumption. The only relevant parameter is the point at which it becomes unprofitable. You could argue that if less fees were spent, some barely profitable mining rigs would be turned off in anticipation. However, Bitcoin is not at the point were fees are decisive yet.

cardanome 5y ago

This assumes that higher efficiency leads to lower total consumption of energy, the data says otherwise. [1] It is interesting that "saving energy" has been established as a dogma that does not even get questioned. I guess the propaganda by big energy monopolists about "carbon footprint" was very successful. Currently nearly the whole world is running a economic system that is based on economic growth and leads to maximizing resource consumption. Sure using resources efficiently does increase the value society can gain from them but not total consumption. If you stop Bitcoin, people will find other means to use the excess energy. The reasonable way to solve this is to make energy PRODUCTION stop using fossil fuels anymore. Simple as that. That is why we need to keep talking about our carbon footprints so we don't take any action that might go against the interest of certain corporations. [1] > The data and analyses presented here show that historically, over long time periods, improvements in efficiency have not succeeded in outpacing increases in the quantity of goods and services provided. https://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/readings/DahmusGutowskiEfficiency.pdf https://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/readings/DahmusGutowskiEfficie...

VectorLock 5y ago
Although reducing fossil fuel consumption is good, reducing energy consumption offsets the negative ecological effects from any kind of power production. Like when they say "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle; in that order" for recycling.