3 ms·

> The "Bitcoin energy problem" has always been a short term issue, as it exposes the problem of under-priced fossil fuel that do not yet capture externalities (

by bArray 5y ago

> The "Bitcoin energy problem" has always been a short term issue, as it exposes the problem of under-priced fossil fuel that do not yet capture externalities (fossil fuels are subsidized by governments, and most countries do not implement a carbon tax). Bitcoin _fundamentally_ is difficult to mine because it consumes available resources at a rate that takes time. If it becomes easier to mine, they'll just make the problem harder. It will _always_ find some resource limitation that slows mining. If energy is no longer an issue, then one can imagine physical hardware will become the next resource limitation. It just pushes the carbon problem from electric generation to manufacturing. > This isn't as big of a problem in the long run because renewable energy from solar, wind, geothermal, are now the cheapest forms of energy, and will probably get even cheaper. You assume. Soon we will hit against other issues though. Even if electricity generation costs nothing, you still need to implement infrastructure to move it around. In reality this means massive power stations, large cabling that travels long distances, etc. This is not something that gets solved in the short term, it's one of the (many) problems that will slow down the push for EVs too. > Combine this with improvements in batteries and other complimentary technologies (solar roofs) and the future of self sustaining, affordable renewable clean energy is very promising. It does not make sense to use fossil fuels for mining in this future when fossil fuel gets priced correctly. Don't swallow Elon Musk's promises, batteries have not really changed all that much. It's difficult to improve on batteries much further than we already have - hydrogen stores may still be the way forwards (and we may regret abandoning them). Solar roofs are better than solar roads, but fixed-position solar panels that do not track the sun are inefficient compared to those that do. Bare in mind also that most renewable energy is dependant on seasons and/or weather conditions. No sun, no solar power. No wind, no turbine power. No gas, no gas power. You only need to checkout the most recent global energy shortage to see this possibility is very real. (Germany will soon regret turning off their nuclear power stations.) Fossil fuels if anything are currently massively overpriced (at retail value). Checkout how much tax your government currently put on them - it's hardly subsidized. Bare in mind also that the oil supply is artificially controlled, it's very heavily tied into politics.

scottiebarnes 5y ago
> Bitcoin _fundamentally_ is difficult to mine because it consumes available resources at a rate that takes time. If it becomes easier to mine, they'll just make the problem harder. It will _always_ find some resource limitation that slows mining. Mining competition is related to price; btc being worth more draws more competition to generate hashes. At some point scale effects occur and there is no longer rapid price growth because volume is large enough (there are no new adopters to bitcoin). Mining ceases to grow at this point, and may actually decrease as block rewards halve. > If energy is no longer an issue, then one can imagine physical hardware will become the next resource limitation. It just pushes the carbon problem from electric generation to manufacturing. I don't know much about SHA2 hashing chipsets but I know there must be some flattening curve where the improvements in efficiency start to flatten and become less worthwhile. I don't see mining chip manufacturing being an existential threat to society. > Even if electricity generation costs nothing, you still need to implement infrastructure to move it around. In reality this means massive power stations, large cabling that travels long distances, etc. You don't, thanks to satellite internet and solar panels. An independent mining operation can sit in the dessert or remote geothermal glacials, entirely self sufficient, beaming up bits to the sky and using its own energy supply.
- bArray 5y ago
  > At some point scale effects occur and there is no longer rapid price growth because volume is large enough (there are no new adopters to bitcoin). A new idiot is born every second. Many users of crypto want to see it have global adoption and replace existing money - in which case we are nowhere near saturation. And that all assumes it won't get some other widely adopted use. Imagine for example it actually became the new Web3, and every single page somehow requires some transaction on the blockchain. The demand would increase beyond levels we have ever seen. It is not clear to me at all that this is a problem that ever resolves itself. > I don't know much about SHA2 hashing chipsets but I know there must be some flattening curve where the improvements in efficiency start to flatten and become less worthwhile. I don't see mining chip manufacturing being an existential threat to society. It's basically Moore's Law (or whatever variation we're on now). If we can't make the chip cores more efficient, just make more of them, make them run faster, make them run more efficient, make them cheaper, etc. As long as their is demand manufacturers will keep churning out new and slightly improved variations of existing designs. As long as there is even some minimal advantage, miners will be forced to buy the new stuff. We see this with GPUs right now. Nvidia literally cannot make enough of them to meet demand. > You don't, thanks to satellite internet and solar panels. An independent mining operation can sit in the dessert or remote geothermal glacials, entirely self sufficient, beaming up bits to the sky and using its own energy supply. This is possible today, and yet, how many crypto mining operations are entirely self-sufficient and operating in the middle of nowhere? Likely not many. Why build your own self-sustaining infrastructure when you can just burden somebody else's? It's much cheaper to tap into your neighbour's electricity and run a mining rig in your basement after all.

by bArray 5y ago

scottiebarnes 5y ago

> Bitcoin _fundamentally_ is difficult to mine because it consumes available resources at a rate that takes time. If it becomes easier to mine, they'll just make the problem harder. It will _always_ find some resource limitation that slows mining. Mining competition is related to price; btc being worth more draws more competition to generate hashes. At some point scale effects occur and there is no longer rapid price growth because volume is large enough (there are no new adopters to bitcoin). Mining ceases to grow at this point, and may actually decrease as block rewards halve. > If energy is no longer an issue, then one can imagine physical hardware will become the next resource limitation. It just pushes the carbon problem from electric generation to manufacturing. I don't know much about SHA2 hashing chipsets but I know there must be some flattening curve where the improvements in efficiency start to flatten and become less worthwhile. I don't see mining chip manufacturing being an existential threat to society. > Even if electricity generation costs nothing, you still need to implement infrastructure to move it around. In reality this means massive power stations, large cabling that travels long distances, etc. You don't, thanks to satellite internet and solar panels. An independent mining operation can sit in the dessert or remote geothermal glacials, entirely self sufficient, beaming up bits to the sky and using its own energy supply.

bArray 5y ago
> At some point scale effects occur and there is no longer rapid price growth because volume is large enough (there are no new adopters to bitcoin). A new idiot is born every second. Many users of crypto want to see it have global adoption and replace existing money - in which case we are nowhere near saturation. And that all assumes it won't get some other widely adopted use. Imagine for example it actually became the new Web3, and every single page somehow requires some transaction on the blockchain. The demand would increase beyond levels we have ever seen. It is not clear to me at all that this is a problem that ever resolves itself. > I don't know much about SHA2 hashing chipsets but I know there must be some flattening curve where the improvements in efficiency start to flatten and become less worthwhile. I don't see mining chip manufacturing being an existential threat to society. It's basically Moore's Law (or whatever variation we're on now). If we can't make the chip cores more efficient, just make more of them, make them run faster, make them run more efficient, make them cheaper, etc. As long as their is demand manufacturers will keep churning out new and slightly improved variations of existing designs. As long as there is even some minimal advantage, miners will be forced to buy the new stuff. We see this with GPUs right now. Nvidia literally cannot make enough of them to meet demand. > You don't, thanks to satellite internet and solar panels. An independent mining operation can sit in the dessert or remote geothermal glacials, entirely self sufficient, beaming up bits to the sky and using its own energy supply. This is possible today, and yet, how many crypto mining operations are entirely self-sufficient and operating in the middle of nowhere? Likely not many. Why build your own self-sustaining infrastructure when you can just burden somebody else's? It's much cheaper to tap into your neighbour's electricity and run a mining rig in your basement after all.