3 ms·

No, it's not outdoor lighting @ 0.85%. It's only the waste from outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting is far higher. [1] But now we're playing a game where you te

No, it's not outdoor lighting @ 0.85%. It's only the waste from outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting is far higher. [1] But now we're playing a game where you tell me the thing you like and the things you don't like and I can either present a counterargument of things I like and don't like and we can both get mad that we have different preferences... Or, we can design a system that allows people to have different preferences without trying to regulate our preferences on each other. The math: (residential power %)(lighting %)(lighting % wasted) (21)(.13)(.35) = 0.9555% (oh, it was higher than I remembered) 1 - https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/energy-waste/#:~:text=IDA%20estimates%20that%20least%2030,plant%20875%20million%20trees%20annually https://www.darksky.org/light-pollution/energy-waste/#:~:tex....

Aunche 4y ago
"Mostly by lights that aren't shielded." Overall, the lighting is still necessary, it's just not as efficient as it could be. By that standard, over 99% of Bitcoin mining is waste because because most of the power goes into solving artificial difficulty. The only people who genuinely care about PoW are miners and a handful of enthusiasts. I'll generously estimate that 1 million people fall into this category. So you have a million people using .5% of the world's electricity just for one of their interests. Contrast that with the billions of people who enjoy videogames or outdoor lighting.
- md2020 4y ago
  > By that standard, over 99% of Bitcoin mining is waste because because most of the power goes into solving artificial difficulty. This is circular reasoning. The difficulty adjustment is part of the protocol, and the purpose of the protocol is to secure the network from attacks. You might think that’s useless, I don’t.
- hailwren 4y ago
  > Overall, the lighting is still necessary, it's just not as efficient as it could be Yes, and the completely fixable loss in efficiency has a significantly greater impact on our consumption than the entirety of cryptocurrency yet I have yet to see someone complaining about the perils of unshielded lighting.

Aunche 4y ago

"Mostly by lights that aren't shielded." Overall, the lighting is still necessary, it's just not as efficient as it could be. By that standard, over 99% of Bitcoin mining is waste because because most of the power goes into solving artificial difficulty. The only people who genuinely care about PoW are miners and a handful of enthusiasts. I'll generously estimate that 1 million people fall into this category. So you have a million people using .5% of the world's electricity just for one of their interests. Contrast that with the billions of people who enjoy videogames or outdoor lighting.

md2020 4y ago
> By that standard, over 99% of Bitcoin mining is waste because because most of the power goes into solving artificial difficulty. This is circular reasoning. The difficulty adjustment is part of the protocol, and the purpose of the protocol is to secure the network from attacks. You might think that’s useless, I don’t.
hailwren 4y ago
> Overall, the lighting is still necessary, it's just not as efficient as it could be Yes, and the completely fixable loss in efficiency has a significantly greater impact on our consumption than the entirety of cryptocurrency yet I have yet to see someone complaining about the perils of unshielded lighting.