4 ms·

> Current Bitcoin usage is literally a rounding error of global energy usage.. That's not very useful comparison. How does it stack up against payment systems'

> Current Bitcoin usage is literally a rounding error of global energy usage.. That's not very useful comparison. How does it stack up against payment systems' energy consumption?

chrischattin 4y ago
Significantly (incomparably) less factoring all the elements in traditional finance and the military industrial complex used to secure it. PoW mining energy consumption is massively exaggerated. Christmas lights alone use more energy than the entire Bitcoin network.
troorl 4y ago
Don't forget to count in the carbon footprint of the physical printing presses all over the world, the cost of disposing the old bills, the fuel needed to transport all those bills every single day, and all the resources associated with building and maintaining that giant infrastructure we take for granted nowadays. I'd also add the cost of waging wars that are made possible by the inflationary policies of the central banks.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > add the cost of waging wars that are made possible by the inflationary policies of the central banks This argument significantly detracts from your credibility. Were there no wars during the millennia we were on commodity money?
gregwebs 4y ago
Bitcoin is not a payment system. It’s a store of value (like gold) useable to underpin payment systems such as Lightning (like fed wire underpins bank to bank transactions today but more like the gold standard of the past). If Bitcoin were wildly successful and using 1% of energy usage it would probably be displacing enough of the existing financial system to be coming in net ahead as an environmental benefit. In it’s current state it doesn’t justify its environmental footprint largely because as a store of value it fluctuates too much, but it will be interesting to see Lightning and other new tech play out.
- Kbelicius 4y ago
  > If Bitcoin were wildly successful and using 1% of energy usage it would probably be displacing enough of the existing financial system to be coming in net ahead as an environmental benefit. I find it highly unlikely. I mean, if you exclude all other energy that is used for all the other things built on top of it, then maybe. And I'm unsure of even that. Fair comparison, judging by your post, seems to be to compare bitcoin to fed wire energy consumption which I would think is using less energy than bitcoin today.
  - gregwebs 4y ago
    Bitcoin uptime is incredible (whereas fedwire just recently had downtime). Fees for Lightning are close to zero whereas traditional international payment fees for example are much greater. New systems will get to leave behind legacy baggage which allows them to build more robust and efficient systems- this could translate to reduced environmental impact. There is no requirement that the endgame for Bitcoin is increased energy consumption or net environmental damage. Regulations like this bill that would stop miners from operating coal plants can help shape a better environmental future for Bitcoin.

> Current Bitcoin usage is literally a rounding error of global energy usage.. That's not very useful comparison. How does it stack up against payment systems' energy consumption?

chrischattin 4y ago

Significantly (incomparably) less factoring all the elements in traditional finance and the military industrial complex used to secure it. PoW mining energy consumption is massively exaggerated. Christmas lights alone use more energy than the entire Bitcoin network.

troorl 4y ago

Don't forget to count in the carbon footprint of the physical printing presses all over the world, the cost of disposing the old bills, the fuel needed to transport all those bills every single day, and all the resources associated with building and maintaining that giant infrastructure we take for granted nowadays. I'd also add the cost of waging wars that are made possible by the inflationary policies of the central banks.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> add the cost of waging wars that are made possible by the inflationary policies of the central banks This argument significantly detracts from your credibility. Were there no wars during the millennia we were on commodity money?

gregwebs 4y ago

Bitcoin is not a payment system. It’s a store of value (like gold) useable to underpin payment systems such as Lightning (like fed wire underpins bank to bank transactions today but more like the gold standard of the past). If Bitcoin were wildly successful and using 1% of energy usage it would probably be displacing enough of the existing financial system to be coming in net ahead as an environmental benefit. In it’s current state it doesn’t justify its environmental footprint largely because as a store of value it fluctuates too much, but it will be interesting to see Lightning and other new tech play out.

Kbelicius 4y ago
> If Bitcoin were wildly successful and using 1% of energy usage it would probably be displacing enough of the existing financial system to be coming in net ahead as an environmental benefit. I find it highly unlikely. I mean, if you exclude all other energy that is used for all the other things built on top of it, then maybe. And I'm unsure of even that. Fair comparison, judging by your post, seems to be to compare bitcoin to fed wire energy consumption which I would think is using less energy than bitcoin today.
- gregwebs 4y ago
  Bitcoin uptime is incredible (whereas fedwire just recently had downtime). Fees for Lightning are close to zero whereas traditional international payment fees for example are much greater. New systems will get to leave behind legacy baggage which allows them to build more robust and efficient systems- this could translate to reduced environmental impact. There is no requirement that the endgame for Bitcoin is increased energy consumption or net environmental damage. Regulations like this bill that would stop miners from operating coal plants can help shape a better environmental future for Bitcoin.