4 ms·

Why do you consider the energy usage from GPUs mining cryptocurrency worse than energy usage from GPUs used for playing video games or rendering CGI graphics? O

Why do you consider the energy usage from GPUs mining cryptocurrency worse than energy usage from GPUs used for playing video games or rendering CGI graphics? Or porn? TV commercials? Why is it considered OK to generate massive amounts of pollution and expend tremendous energy flying beef from Japan to New York for people's consumption, when there are perfectly edible cuts of beef which require at most a short train ride? What if the crypto is mined in part or full by renewable energy, which many crypto miners do (it's economically to their advantage in certain areas/climates)? If the goal is saving the planet, there are plenty of activities like flying internationally for pleasure, or eating meat that do far more environmental damage than cryptocurrency mining.

bigdubs 5y ago
This is not a good comparison because big mining farms are not equivalent to people playing video games at home.
- oarabbus_ 5y ago
  So then is the problem "crypto currency mining" or "large bitcoin mining farms"? If that's the case it shouldn't be a problem if an individual wants to mine ethereum in their home. Regardless there are 1.5+ billion gamers which does make it comparable. Video streaming in aggregate consumes an incredible amount of energy, as does non-essential plane travel. But people seem to not mind that. It's fine if people want to enjoy their movies or fly around the world for pleasure but it's a bit of cognitive dissonance.
  - ryan93 5y ago
    most of those 1.5 billion graphics cards are off at any given time and not running full bore even when they are on.
Nursie 5y ago
We’ll, firstly the largest contributor, BTC, doesn’t use GPUs. Secondly, many of us don’t think that beef example is really “OK” either. Third, the idea that Bitcoin or crypto in general runs predominantly on green power is bullshit. Fourth, BTC now consumes more power and has more associated carbon output than many mid sized countries, it is not some piddling little thing that we can safely ignore. Fifth, and last - My point that you replied to was about the article writing the problem off as personal choice. While we only have one planet it is not just personal choice.
- oarabbus_ 5y ago
  Sounds like we should tackle the biggest problems first, of which greenhouse gas emissions from raising and transporting meat is the largest. Much larger than bitcoin. Only those with a medical reason requiring them to eat meat should, and the rest should eat local plant-based food. After all except for people who require meat in their diet to survive (extremely rare) it's a personal choice.
squarefoot 5y ago
> Why do you consider the energy usage from GPUs mining cryptocurrency worse than energy usage from GPUs used for playing video games or rendering CGI graphics? Or porn? TV commercials? Because gamers, graphics designers, porn watchers and TVs don't use piles of thousands GPUs kept at 100% load 24/7. The spike in power demand and consumption after cryptocurrencies became popular speaks for itself. > Why is it considered OK to generate massive amounts of pollution and expend tremendous energy flying beef from Japan to New York for people's consumption, when there are perfectly edible cuts of beef which require at most a short train ride? Totally unrelated issue that the absence of cryptocurrencies didn't create and that cryptocurrencies can't solve. > What if the crypto is mined in part or full by renewable energy, which many crypto miners do (it's economically to their advantage in certain areas/climates)? Because they still pump heat in the atmosphere. Also, most places where renewables such as solar can be convenient, aren't the best places to generate more heat, and they would need even more energy to cool down the electronics. > If the goal is saving the planet, there are plenty of activities like flying internationally for pleasure, or eating meat that do far more environmental damage than cryptocurrency mining. Completely unrelated as well. See point #2.
- oarabbus_ 5y ago
  >Because gamers, graphics designers, porn watchers and TVs don't use piles of thousands GPUs kept at 100% load 24/7. The spike in power demand and consumption after cryptocurrencies became popular speaks for itself. Many blockchains already use or are transitioning to proof of stake cryptocurrencies. Not to mention gamers, porn watchers, and graphic designers in aggregate utilize far more energy than cryptocurrency and also do not use green sources. It seems you just have a personal dislike of crypto and are letting it preclude you from objectivity.
  - squarefoot 5y ago
    Actually I would be very interested in it, but I don't see any evidence that it is becoming environment friendly. Energy demand (and therefore cost) increases every day, so are GPU prices. The day I'll see them going back to normal I may change idea about the technology, although I wouldn't touch it as a currency with a 10 meters pole: 3 days of protests for soaring energy prices in Kazakhstan made Bitcoin drop from over $47K down to less than $43K.

bigdubs 5y ago

This is not a good comparison because big mining farms are not equivalent to people playing video games at home.

oarabbus_ 5y ago
So then is the problem "crypto currency mining" or "large bitcoin mining farms"? If that's the case it shouldn't be a problem if an individual wants to mine ethereum in their home. Regardless there are 1.5+ billion gamers which does make it comparable. Video streaming in aggregate consumes an incredible amount of energy, as does non-essential plane travel. But people seem to not mind that. It's fine if people want to enjoy their movies or fly around the world for pleasure but it's a bit of cognitive dissonance.
- ryan93 5y ago
  most of those 1.5 billion graphics cards are off at any given time and not running full bore even when they are on.

Nursie 5y ago

We’ll, firstly the largest contributor, BTC, doesn’t use GPUs. Secondly, many of us don’t think that beef example is really “OK” either. Third, the idea that Bitcoin or crypto in general runs predominantly on green power is bullshit. Fourth, BTC now consumes more power and has more associated carbon output than many mid sized countries, it is not some piddling little thing that we can safely ignore. Fifth, and last - My point that you replied to was about the article writing the problem off as personal choice. While we only have one planet it is not just personal choice.

oarabbus_ 5y ago
Sounds like we should tackle the biggest problems first, of which greenhouse gas emissions from raising and transporting meat is the largest. Much larger than bitcoin. Only those with a medical reason requiring them to eat meat should, and the rest should eat local plant-based food. After all except for people who require meat in their diet to survive (extremely rare) it's a personal choice.

squarefoot 5y ago

> Why do you consider the energy usage from GPUs mining cryptocurrency worse than energy usage from GPUs used for playing video games or rendering CGI graphics? Or porn? TV commercials? Because gamers, graphics designers, porn watchers and TVs don't use piles of thousands GPUs kept at 100% load 24/7. The spike in power demand and consumption after cryptocurrencies became popular speaks for itself. > Why is it considered OK to generate massive amounts of pollution and expend tremendous energy flying beef from Japan to New York for people's consumption, when there are perfectly edible cuts of beef which require at most a short train ride? Totally unrelated issue that the absence of cryptocurrencies didn't create and that cryptocurrencies can't solve. > What if the crypto is mined in part or full by renewable energy, which many crypto miners do (it's economically to their advantage in certain areas/climates)? Because they still pump heat in the atmosphere. Also, most places where renewables such as solar can be convenient, aren't the best places to generate more heat, and they would need even more energy to cool down the electronics. > If the goal is saving the planet, there are plenty of activities like flying internationally for pleasure, or eating meat that do far more environmental damage than cryptocurrency mining. Completely unrelated as well. See point #2.

oarabbus_ 5y ago
>Because gamers, graphics designers, porn watchers and TVs don't use piles of thousands GPUs kept at 100% load 24/7. The spike in power demand and consumption after cryptocurrencies became popular speaks for itself. Many blockchains already use or are transitioning to proof of stake cryptocurrencies. Not to mention gamers, porn watchers, and graphic designers in aggregate utilize far more energy than cryptocurrency and also do not use green sources. It seems you just have a personal dislike of crypto and are letting it preclude you from objectivity.
- squarefoot 5y ago
  Actually I would be very interested in it, but I don't see any evidence that it is becoming environment friendly. Energy demand (and therefore cost) increases every day, so are GPU prices. The day I'll see them going back to normal I may change idea about the technology, although I wouldn't touch it as a currency with a 10 meters pole: 3 days of protests for soaring energy prices in Kazakhstan made Bitcoin drop from over $47K down to less than $43K.