5 ms·

How is an open, permissionless financial network that uses a fraction of a % of the world's energy a scam that will destroy life on Earth? Uninformed, hyperboli

How is an open, permissionless financial network that uses a fraction of a % of the world's energy a scam that will destroy life on Earth? Uninformed, hyperbolic statements about Bitcoin is a sign you're incapable of basic understanding of anything.

djschnei 4y ago
Completely agree. Energy consumption is what enables human flourishing. Quite frankly, "Energy consumption = bad" is pro-human suffering. The lack of nuance in that argument is tiresome.
- skyfaller 4y ago
  Humans benefit from using energy, but our current energy systems release terrifying amounts of greenhouse gases. Continued global heating will involve mass death, and a great deal of human suffering along the way. Energy use is necessary to support human life, but limiting energy use is vital to avoid climate catastrophe. It's not a fun problem to have, but you can't wish it away by saying "but people need and enjoy energy!" Of course they do, that's why we need to limit energy use, so that they can enjoy energy in the future, rather than suffering the complete collapse of the systems that allow them to enjoy energy.
  - djschnei 4y ago
    You are wrong. You will have incredibly realtime examples of how dangerous this way of thinking is when winter hits Europe this year. Energy is life. It's not a "nice to have" or something people "enjoy".
    - skyfaller 4y ago
      What part of "Energy use is necessary to support human life" did you not understand when I said it? Do you understand that heat waves, flooding, forest fires, and other extreme weather events will interfere with the delivery of energy? Do you understand that water shortages will interfere with the delivery of energy (e.g. nuclear power plants need water for cooling)? Do you understand that resource wars will interfere with the delivery of energy? Do you understand that climate change preventing food from growing will interfere with the survival of the people who deliver the energy? Of course energy is vital to human existence, I recommend e.g. Energy and Civilization by Vaclav Smil to anyone who wants to understand this in great detail: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/energy-and-civilization https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/energy-and-civilization But the climate crisis will interfere with energy production and delivery, just as it interferes with everything else that humans want or need to do. Refusing to reduce energy usage voluntarily will result in involuntary reduction in energy usage as systems fail.
      - djschnei 4y ago
        > limiting energy use is vital to avoid climate catastrophe. This is what I have issue with. Energy use benefits humanity. Full stop. If you said civilization needs bananas to survive and flourish, then some good samaritan came along and said "I will always buy any leftover bananas you can't sell no matter where or when you grow them", you would get many more banana farms, people experimenting with new banana growing/harvesting technology, etc. It's an undeniable benefit if your goal is to produce more bananas.
        skyfaller 4y ago
        I'll try a simple analogy: imagine that your goal is to consume as much corn as possible. (A silly goal for many reasons, but that's a different discussion.) You have all of the corn that you've grown to eat, and then there's the seed corn you would need to plant in order to eat more corn in the future. If you decide to eat the seed corn as well, you will eat more corn in the immediate future, and then much less corn after that. Clearly limits to consumption are sometimes necessary in order to maximize consumption over the long term, even if you grant the premise that maximizing consumption is desirable.
        djschnei 4y ago
        Terrible analogy. Energy production requires large upfront investments in infrastructure. There is nothing analogous to seed in energy. There are only farms and corn that expires extremely quickly and is hard to transport.
skyfaller 4y ago
To be explicit, one problem with Bitcoin's energy use is that it has the potential to consume any excess energy-producing capacity that we free up by making technology more energy efficient. It could use any fossil fuel-powered energy production that otherwise might be obsoleted by green energy sources. Bitcoin and other PoW blockchains add a strong financial incentive to use all available energy production capacity to its limit. Certainly it is difficult to imagine the market encouraging e.g. carbon capture when the same unit of energy could be used to mine Bitcoin instead for more "profit". (Not that I think carbon capture is likely to make much of a difference, given that simply not releasing greenhouse gases in the first place is always more efficient.) If energy efficiency and green energy sources will not suffice to reduce our burning of fossil fuels, due in part to Bitcoin and its ilk, then the only way to avoid climate catastrophe would be simply doing less, a.k.a. degrowth. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to imagine what the typical cryptocurrency advocate thinks of degrowth. (But that would interfere with the numbers going up!) In short, Bitcoin is a major roadblock to any response to the climate crisis, using any strategy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- djschnei 4y ago
  > that we free up by making technology more energy efficient This is 100% a fake problem that clearly does not exist if you understood anything about the energy market. Civilization is at an increasing rate consuming more electricity. Surely, someone who believes carbon emissions are destroying the planet would agree we need to electrify everything. Bitcoin consuming and therefore monetizing stranded and/or temporary excess amounts of energy make accelerated electrification of our society a much more realistic endeavor. Having an electricity dung-beetle, a buyer of last resort, is a revelation.
  - skyfaller 4y ago
    Bitcoin doesn't discriminate between green energy sources and fossil fuel energy sources. It encourages production/consumption of fossil fuels just as much as it encourages production/consumption of green energy sources. There's no particular reason to believe that Bitcoin will accelerate electrification.

djschnei 4y ago

Completely agree. Energy consumption is what enables human flourishing. Quite frankly, "Energy consumption = bad" is pro-human suffering. The lack of nuance in that argument is tiresome.

skyfaller 4y ago
Humans benefit from using energy, but our current energy systems release terrifying amounts of greenhouse gases. Continued global heating will involve mass death, and a great deal of human suffering along the way. Energy use is necessary to support human life, but limiting energy use is vital to avoid climate catastrophe. It's not a fun problem to have, but you can't wish it away by saying "but people need and enjoy energy!" Of course they do, that's why we need to limit energy use, so that they can enjoy energy in the future, rather than suffering the complete collapse of the systems that allow them to enjoy energy.
- djschnei 4y ago
  You are wrong. You will have incredibly realtime examples of how dangerous this way of thinking is when winter hits Europe this year. Energy is life. It's not a "nice to have" or something people "enjoy".
  - skyfaller 4y ago
    What part of "Energy use is necessary to support human life" did you not understand when I said it? Do you understand that heat waves, flooding, forest fires, and other extreme weather events will interfere with the delivery of energy? Do you understand that water shortages will interfere with the delivery of energy (e.g. nuclear power plants need water for cooling)? Do you understand that resource wars will interfere with the delivery of energy? Do you understand that climate change preventing food from growing will interfere with the survival of the people who deliver the energy? Of course energy is vital to human existence, I recommend e.g. Energy and Civilization by Vaclav Smil to anyone who wants to understand this in great detail: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/energy-and-civilization https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/energy-and-civilization But the climate crisis will interfere with energy production and delivery, just as it interferes with everything else that humans want or need to do. Refusing to reduce energy usage voluntarily will result in involuntary reduction in energy usage as systems fail.
    - djschnei 4y ago
      > limiting energy use is vital to avoid climate catastrophe. This is what I have issue with. Energy use benefits humanity. Full stop. If you said civilization needs bananas to survive and flourish, then some good samaritan came along and said "I will always buy any leftover bananas you can't sell no matter where or when you grow them", you would get many more banana farms, people experimenting with new banana growing/harvesting technology, etc. It's an undeniable benefit if your goal is to produce more bananas.
      - skyfaller 4y ago
        I'll try a simple analogy: imagine that your goal is to consume as much corn as possible. (A silly goal for many reasons, but that's a different discussion.) You have all of the corn that you've grown to eat, and then there's the seed corn you would need to plant in order to eat more corn in the future. If you decide to eat the seed corn as well, you will eat more corn in the immediate future, and then much less corn after that. Clearly limits to consumption are sometimes necessary in order to maximize consumption over the long term, even if you grant the premise that maximizing consumption is desirable.
        djschnei 4y ago
        Terrible analogy. Energy production requires large upfront investments in infrastructure. There is nothing analogous to seed in energy. There are only farms and corn that expires extremely quickly and is hard to transport.

skyfaller 4y ago

To be explicit, one problem with Bitcoin's energy use is that it has the potential to consume any excess energy-producing capacity that we free up by making technology more energy efficient. It could use any fossil fuel-powered energy production that otherwise might be obsoleted by green energy sources. Bitcoin and other PoW blockchains add a strong financial incentive to use all available energy production capacity to its limit. Certainly it is difficult to imagine the market encouraging e.g. carbon capture when the same unit of energy could be used to mine Bitcoin instead for more "profit". (Not that I think carbon capture is likely to make much of a difference, given that simply not releasing greenhouse gases in the first place is always more efficient.) If energy efficiency and green energy sources will not suffice to reduce our burning of fossil fuels, due in part to Bitcoin and its ilk, then the only way to avoid climate catastrophe would be simply doing less, a.k.a. degrowth. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to imagine what the typical cryptocurrency advocate thinks of degrowth. (But that would interfere with the numbers going up!) In short, Bitcoin is a major roadblock to any response to the climate crisis, using any strategy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
djschnei 4y ago
> that we free up by making technology more energy efficient This is 100% a fake problem that clearly does not exist if you understood anything about the energy market. Civilization is at an increasing rate consuming more electricity. Surely, someone who believes carbon emissions are destroying the planet would agree we need to electrify everything. Bitcoin consuming and therefore monetizing stranded and/or temporary excess amounts of energy make accelerated electrification of our society a much more realistic endeavor. Having an electricity dung-beetle, a buyer of last resort, is a revelation.
- skyfaller 4y ago
  Bitcoin doesn't discriminate between green energy sources and fossil fuel energy sources. It encourages production/consumption of fossil fuels just as much as it encourages production/consumption of green energy sources. There's no particular reason to believe that Bitcoin will accelerate electrification.