4 ms·
I think the author actually does a good job summing up the usual arguments given to dismiss Bitcoin not being environment friendly but I don't think they are re
by walkhour 5y ago
I think the author actually does a good job summing up the usual arguments given to dismiss Bitcoin not being environment friendly but I don't think they are refuted.
Bitcoin uses less energy than completely useless things (like Christmas lights) and way way way less energy than actual harmful things (videogames). However we just can't stop taking about how harmful Bitcoin is to the environment and if anyone suggested banning gold for similar reasons they would simply be laughed out of the room.
Honestly it looks like there are no good Bitcoin externalities that can be pointed out, so let's just zero in into this one, however inconsistent we'll be towards other industries.
- rspeele 5y agoThe author does point out your Christmas light comparison but identifies a key distinction: for Christmas lights, the point is the colorful lighting for human enjoyment. That's the upside and the energy cost is the downside. Coming up with a lower-energy way to generate the same colorful lighting will save energy. For Bitcoin, the destruction of value is the point. The nature of proof-of-work is that you continuously expend more resources than a hypothetical attacker possibly could. If resources get cheaper or more abundant, you must burn more of them to compensate, because your attacker can too and you always have to outpace them. So Bitcoin incentivizes using an "expensive" amount of energy no matter how "cheap" energy gets.