4 ms·

Another argument is that it actually encourages the development of new power generation plants by subsidising the cost for producers: https://www.newsweek.com/b

Another argument is that it actually encourages the development of new power generation plants by subsidising the cost for producers: https://www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-mining-americas-most-misunderstood-industry-opinion-1669892 https://www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-mining-americas-most-misund...

cuteboy19 5y ago
It's not really an argument. It's wishful thinking unsupported by actual evidence or even common sense, and it directly goes against actual evidence of Bitcoin miners starting up old fossil fuel plants. Bitcoin holders are greatly incentivized to make up theories about Bitcoin being environmentally friendly.
- scottiebarnes 5y ago
  You're writing on a technology forum. How is it you probably have very good context in terms of adoption curves, cost curves, and generally the ability to see the future better than the average person, but when it comes to Bitcoin/energy creation, there is no effort? Of course mining is going to use the cheapest energy available right now. We subsidize fossil fuel industry and we don't utilize carbon taxes. But solar power, wind power, renewables, are now the cheapest sources of energy in the world, and in all of history and will presumably only get cheaper (https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth). Capacity gets built out when demand exceeds supply. Capacity is also a larger upfront cost. Low hanging fruit gets picked first. So project 10 years, 25 years, and 50 years out from now. The first Tesla Roadster came out in 2008, 13 years ago. In 2008 people laughed at the idea of electric cars, now its abundantly clear that electric cars will be the only cars of the future. It took time for manufacturing capacity and technical improvements for the right scale to occur. You're living in 2008 saying "what evidence is there for an electric car market? That goes against the current evidence of all these ICE auto sales we currently have."
  - cuteboy19 5y ago
    The problem is that Bitcoin can go for the cheapest source of energy available worldwide. So the best case scenario involves forcing the entire world to adopt carbon taxes and remove fuel subsidies which are extremely popular. It's not going to happen at least in the next 20 years. At the same time when you posit a counterintuitive idea, you have to at the very least give some evidence that it actually happens in the real world. No such specific evidence is presented. No one who doesn't hold Bitcoin says that Bitcoin is good for the environment. The only people who insist such a possibility are heavily invested into Bitcoin. This is very suspicious at the very least.
    - scottiebarnes 5y ago
      The world agreeing to end fossil fuel subsidies and add carbon tax is indeed contentious, however we don't need everyone to agree, just enough major players. We've already agreed to Kyoto protocols/Paris climate accord, etc., so we know it can be done. The evidence is first principles behavioral economics. If renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy (which is easily verifiable, and true), then it will become the majority source of energy not just for mining, but the world. Nothing is actually "good" for the environment; human existence is inherently "bad" for the environment. But rapid infrastructure capacity change from fossil fuel power plants to renewable power plants would be a good thing. Bitcoin provides the most profitable/easiest way of monetizing energy; and so it fits that Bitcoin mining will be major buyers of renewable energy, should it be available. That improves profitability of renewable investments, lowers break even payback time, and generally supports renewable industry. If you don't care about Bitcoin, you don't care to defend it against untrue or unbalanced criticisms, that's why you only hear these defenses from Bitcoiners, or people who actually care to take the time to study and understand. Its not suspicious, its very common sense. When was the last time you invested time in understanding and then arguing online about something you didn't care about?
      - aspyct 5y ago
        You're not seeing the big picture: what's the point of generating more electricity, if it's all wasted on creating useless bitcoin? Shouldn't we be capturing co2 or warming up children in need instead?

cuteboy19 5y ago

It's not really an argument. It's wishful thinking unsupported by actual evidence or even common sense, and it directly goes against actual evidence of Bitcoin miners starting up old fossil fuel plants. Bitcoin holders are greatly incentivized to make up theories about Bitcoin being environmentally friendly.

scottiebarnes 5y ago
You're writing on a technology forum. How is it you probably have very good context in terms of adoption curves, cost curves, and generally the ability to see the future better than the average person, but when it comes to Bitcoin/energy creation, there is no effort? Of course mining is going to use the cheapest energy available right now. We subsidize fossil fuel industry and we don't utilize carbon taxes. But solar power, wind power, renewables, are now the cheapest sources of energy in the world, and in all of history and will presumably only get cheaper (https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth). Capacity gets built out when demand exceeds supply. Capacity is also a larger upfront cost. Low hanging fruit gets picked first. So project 10 years, 25 years, and 50 years out from now. The first Tesla Roadster came out in 2008, 13 years ago. In 2008 people laughed at the idea of electric cars, now its abundantly clear that electric cars will be the only cars of the future. It took time for manufacturing capacity and technical improvements for the right scale to occur. You're living in 2008 saying "what evidence is there for an electric car market? That goes against the current evidence of all these ICE auto sales we currently have."
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  The problem is that Bitcoin can go for the cheapest source of energy available worldwide. So the best case scenario involves forcing the entire world to adopt carbon taxes and remove fuel subsidies which are extremely popular. It's not going to happen at least in the next 20 years. At the same time when you posit a counterintuitive idea, you have to at the very least give some evidence that it actually happens in the real world. No such specific evidence is presented. No one who doesn't hold Bitcoin says that Bitcoin is good for the environment. The only people who insist such a possibility are heavily invested into Bitcoin. This is very suspicious at the very least.
  - scottiebarnes 5y ago
    The world agreeing to end fossil fuel subsidies and add carbon tax is indeed contentious, however we don't need everyone to agree, just enough major players. We've already agreed to Kyoto protocols/Paris climate accord, etc., so we know it can be done. The evidence is first principles behavioral economics. If renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy (which is easily verifiable, and true), then it will become the majority source of energy not just for mining, but the world. Nothing is actually "good" for the environment; human existence is inherently "bad" for the environment. But rapid infrastructure capacity change from fossil fuel power plants to renewable power plants would be a good thing. Bitcoin provides the most profitable/easiest way of monetizing energy; and so it fits that Bitcoin mining will be major buyers of renewable energy, should it be available. That improves profitability of renewable investments, lowers break even payback time, and generally supports renewable industry. If you don't care about Bitcoin, you don't care to defend it against untrue or unbalanced criticisms, that's why you only hear these defenses from Bitcoiners, or people who actually care to take the time to study and understand. Its not suspicious, its very common sense. When was the last time you invested time in understanding and then arguing online about something you didn't care about?
    - aspyct 5y ago
      You're not seeing the big picture: what's the point of generating more electricity, if it's all wasted on creating useless bitcoin? Shouldn't we be capturing co2 or warming up children in need instead?