6 ms·

> Instead of talking about these "gas fees" in terms of their monetary value, we should measure them in terms of tons of CO2, or perhaps its equivalent acres-of

by fosk 4y ago

> Instead of talking about these "gas fees" in terms of their monetary value, we should measure them in terms of tons of CO2, or perhaps its equivalent acres-of-the-Amazon-rainforest-lit-on-fire. I'm 100% serious. I am so annoyed by this argument. The question we should be asking ourselves is how electricity is being generated in the first place. Fighting crypto is the wrong fight for environmentalists: the right fight is transitioning to healthier and cleaner source of energy in a world that will inevitably consume more and more electricity as part of our organic progress, with or without crypto. If anything, use crypto and electric cars as a driver to enact these changes, not as blockers, since they drive more electric consumption and therefore they help making a stronger case for cleaner source of energy.

iostream24 4y ago
That’s like saying drunk drivers are actually lobbyists for funding more police sobriety checkpoints.
- fosk 4y ago
  No. It's like saying that we need more food (and technology to produce it) to sustain an ever growing population, rather than saying we should mass-murder our population to bring it back within an acceptable boundary. This will bring investments, technology advancements, and trigger a race to generate energy in a better way. We will always consume more energy (and food!) as our civilization progresses, I am embracing that without blocking that. Also, even without crypto we still need to find better energy sources anyways, so what's the pushback all about? We are just kicking the can down the road with no action other than "criminalizing" crypto.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
cuteboy19 4y ago
The incentives don't match. No matter how efficient we make our power generation, PoW will simply scale up and consume more, making those gains moot. It will use up cheaper renewable energy and force everyone else to keep relying on fossil fuels. Of course I should not forget to mention the e waste which is a concern regardless of how much greenwashing is done
- vmception 4y ago
  PoW will scale up to match, be vigilant about which sources it uses, which sources an enterpriser wants to try to use. Be vigilant about the coal plants coming online, while non-grid connected methane-reducing sources are applauded. Large scale miners allowed this argument to get out of control because they didn't want people to know their sources of energy (extending their lead in front of other miners), and now this ESG boogeyman has taken an inaccurate life of its own. At the end of the day, if you really think you have another economical use of energy because proof of work can't possibly be "it", then you still have to thank Proof of Work for making you notice an energy source and use case that everyone else failed to notice for decades. I think PoW's incentives to grow are something that needs a lot of vigilance to curb, as it will be governments eventually using it in the most economical and polluting way, in order to control the network. But I think enough people can see through the "I just want any other thing to use energy waaah" argument that the private sector ban is never going to happen.
pcwalton 4y ago
Cryptocurrency is worse than electric cars because cryptocurrency can be mined everywhere in the world, whereas electric cars require the use of the electrical grid near the location they're being driven. This means that local governments can mandate cleaner sources of energy and actually have an effect on electric cars, as you can't just import electricity from overseas as easily, while cryptocurrency mining can just move to more favorable jurisdictions in response to any inconvenient regulations. The incentives of cryptocurrency mining create a race to the bottom, where mining operations simply relocate around the world to wherever the regulations are laxest.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
While the low-effort statements stemming from the obsession with crypto carbon output annoy me as well, energy budget is an essentially zero-sum game (ignoring anomalous areas like those with net excess geothermal), and zero-carbon energy can be achieved by increasing 0C production or decreasing consumption. As with almost every ecological issue, decreasing consumption is the more economically and logistically viable part of the solution, especially when it comes to cryptocurrency where the value-per-unit-energy is so many orders of magnitude lower than traditional systems.
- fosk 4y ago
  I suggest scaling nuclear power all the way, while still innovating and investing in non-nuclear clean energy in the meantime.
Banana699 4y ago
You're assuming that the proponents of this argument are convinced that crypto is a worthwhile burn of energy in the first place, which is - off course - exactly the opposite of what's being implied. Here's how your opponents see this exchange : >> Instead of talking about <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>> in terms of their monetary value, we should measure them in terms of tons of CO2, or perhaps its equivalent acres-of-the-Amazon-rainforest-lit-on-fire. I'm 100% serious. > I am so annoyed by this argument. The question we should be asking ourselves is how <<<Gasoline>>> is being generated in the first place. Fighting <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>> is the wrong fight for environmentalists: the right fight is transitioning to healthier and cleaner source of <<<Gasoline>>> in a world that will inevitably consume more and more <<<Petroleum>>> as part of our organic progress, with or without <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>>. I replaced some words (marked by <<<.>>>) to make an analogy that will stand out to you and let you see how the other side uses the argument: they're not implying that enviromental disasters can be totally averted by banning crypto, they're simply stating that crypto is such a monumental waste of energy, the equivalent of burning skyscrapers for fun, that banning it will deprieve us of nothing valuable while saving up valuable time in our _continued_ fight for the enviroment. If you're stuck in the desert with limited water, you search for more water *and* punish those who waste existing water. The more extravagant the waste and far away the alternative sources, the more you should divide your attention between finding new sources and punishing those who waste. I'm personally moderately on the anti-crypto side (just barely, and very reluctantly) in this, distributed trustless blockchains is a A)Theoretically beautiful B)But extremly, hugely, unimaginably inefficient-in-practice idea that only kinda sorta work when you use it for what plain old bitcoin was used for in the early days and only under extreme circumstances (e.g. circumventing governoment censorship). It's like communism (ironic given the stereotypical libertarianism of it's proponents), it's beautiful that somebody thought of this as an alternative to what we currently do and it's fascinating to imagine what we can do with it. But it's just not ready, maybe a better humanity in a better time and place could make it work, but not here and not now. Rushing not-ready things into production then "fixing it later" is how you do hacky scripts and shitty CRUD apps, not economic and financial systems. The reason I also hate anti-crypto discourse is the extreme religiousness (almost of the same caliber as the fanatically pro-crypto side) that people treat this matter with, no amount of anger and insults will make reasonable pro-crypto people see the error of their ways, and unreasonable folks will not listen to the fiery screeds in the first place, so all this screaming going back and forth is for nothing.
jasonshaev 4y ago
Aren't both things true from an environmentalists perspective? 1) We need to "transition[] to healthier and cleaner source of energy" 2) We need to use less energy overall We do not produce enough clean energy to meet the total demand for energy. Until that is true, using less energy is a valid path to reducing the total impact of climate change.

by fosk 4y ago

iostream24 4y ago

That’s like saying drunk drivers are actually lobbyists for funding more police sobriety checkpoints.

fosk 4y ago
No. It's like saying that we need more food (and technology to produce it) to sustain an ever growing population, rather than saying we should mass-murder our population to bring it back within an acceptable boundary. This will bring investments, technology advancements, and trigger a race to generate energy in a better way. We will always consume more energy (and food!) as our civilization progresses, I am embracing that without blocking that. Also, even without crypto we still need to find better energy sources anyways, so what's the pushback all about? We are just kicking the can down the road with no action other than "criminalizing" crypto.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

cuteboy19 4y ago

The incentives don't match. No matter how efficient we make our power generation, PoW will simply scale up and consume more, making those gains moot. It will use up cheaper renewable energy and force everyone else to keep relying on fossil fuels. Of course I should not forget to mention the e waste which is a concern regardless of how much greenwashing is done

vmception 4y ago
PoW will scale up to match, be vigilant about which sources it uses, which sources an enterpriser wants to try to use. Be vigilant about the coal plants coming online, while non-grid connected methane-reducing sources are applauded. Large scale miners allowed this argument to get out of control because they didn't want people to know their sources of energy (extending their lead in front of other miners), and now this ESG boogeyman has taken an inaccurate life of its own. At the end of the day, if you really think you have another economical use of energy because proof of work can't possibly be "it", then you still have to thank Proof of Work for making you notice an energy source and use case that everyone else failed to notice for decades. I think PoW's incentives to grow are something that needs a lot of vigilance to curb, as it will be governments eventually using it in the most economical and polluting way, in order to control the network. But I think enough people can see through the "I just want any other thing to use energy waaah" argument that the private sector ban is never going to happen.

pcwalton 4y ago

Cryptocurrency is worse than electric cars because cryptocurrency can be mined everywhere in the world, whereas electric cars require the use of the electrical grid near the location they're being driven. This means that local governments can mandate cleaner sources of energy and actually have an effect on electric cars, as you can't just import electricity from overseas as easily, while cryptocurrency mining can just move to more favorable jurisdictions in response to any inconvenient regulations. The incentives of cryptocurrency mining create a race to the bottom, where mining operations simply relocate around the world to wherever the regulations are laxest.

LordDragonfang 4y ago

While the low-effort statements stemming from the obsession with crypto carbon output annoy me as well, energy budget is an essentially zero-sum game (ignoring anomalous areas like those with net excess geothermal), and zero-carbon energy can be achieved by increasing 0C production or decreasing consumption. As with almost every ecological issue, decreasing consumption is the more economically and logistically viable part of the solution, especially when it comes to cryptocurrency where the value-per-unit-energy is so many orders of magnitude lower than traditional systems.

fosk 4y ago
I suggest scaling nuclear power all the way, while still innovating and investing in non-nuclear clean energy in the meantime.

Banana699 4y ago

You're assuming that the proponents of this argument are convinced that crypto is a worthwhile burn of energy in the first place, which is - off course - exactly the opposite of what's being implied. Here's how your opponents see this exchange : >> Instead of talking about <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>> in terms of their monetary value, we should measure them in terms of tons of CO2, or perhaps its equivalent acres-of-the-Amazon-rainforest-lit-on-fire. I'm 100% serious. > I am so annoyed by this argument. The question we should be asking ourselves is how <<<Gasoline>>> is being generated in the first place. Fighting <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>> is the wrong fight for environmentalists: the right fight is transitioning to healthier and cleaner source of <<<Gasoline>>> in a world that will inevitably consume more and more <<<Petroleum>>> as part of our organic progress, with or without <<<Burning skyscrapers for fun>>>. I replaced some words (marked by <<<.>>>) to make an analogy that will stand out to you and let you see how the other side uses the argument: they're not implying that enviromental disasters can be totally averted by banning crypto, they're simply stating that crypto is such a monumental waste of energy, the equivalent of burning skyscrapers for fun, that banning it will deprieve us of nothing valuable while saving up valuable time in our _continued_ fight for the enviroment. If you're stuck in the desert with limited water, you search for more water *and* punish those who waste existing water. The more extravagant the waste and far away the alternative sources, the more you should divide your attention between finding new sources and punishing those who waste. I'm personally moderately on the anti-crypto side (just barely, and very reluctantly) in this, distributed trustless blockchains is a A)Theoretically beautiful B)But extremly, hugely, unimaginably inefficient-in-practice idea that only kinda sorta work when you use it for what plain old bitcoin was used for in the early days and only under extreme circumstances (e.g. circumventing governoment censorship). It's like communism (ironic given the stereotypical libertarianism of it's proponents), it's beautiful that somebody thought of this as an alternative to what we currently do and it's fascinating to imagine what we can do with it. But it's just not ready, maybe a better humanity in a better time and place could make it work, but not here and not now. Rushing not-ready things into production then "fixing it later" is how you do hacky scripts and shitty CRUD apps, not economic and financial systems. The reason I also hate anti-crypto discourse is the extreme religiousness (almost of the same caliber as the fanatically pro-crypto side) that people treat this matter with, no amount of anger and insults will make reasonable pro-crypto people see the error of their ways, and unreasonable folks will not listen to the fiery screeds in the first place, so all this screaming going back and forth is for nothing.

jasonshaev 4y ago

Aren't both things true from an environmentalists perspective? 1) We need to "transition[] to healthier and cleaner source of energy" 2) We need to use less energy overall We do not produce enough clean energy to meet the total demand for energy. Until that is true, using less energy is a valid path to reducing the total impact of climate change.