3 ms·

> I stopped reading as soon as they quoted that silly inaccurate UoC website that gets quoted over and over again. You stopped reading because you don't like w

> I stopped reading as soon as they quoted that silly inaccurate UoC website that gets quoted over and over again. You stopped reading because you don't like what they had to say. Even mining groups who are incentivized to provide the rosiest picture are within the ballpark. Current hash rate is 245.32M TH/s. An AntMiner S19 Pro consumes 29.7 J/TH, so assuming they're all S19s (a big if) we'd be consuming 7226MJ/s or 2007.5kWh/s. That's 64TWh/yr. So your absolute best case is 1/2 of the Cambridge number. Which is exactly what they list as the "minimum" number. As soon as we start factoring in things inefficiency and losses along the way - and the fact not everyone has an S19 Pro - we start to get closer and closer to that flagship number. But let's make no mistake - even the minimum number is a staggering, mind-boggling disaster of unprecedented scale. > At the end of the day, read this: https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ https://www.lynalden.com/bitcoin-energy/ Lyn is a zealot and a shill, and her arguments on basically any topic are trivially wrong. I would strongly recommend against trusting anything on that blog and instead look for different sources.

latchkey 4y ago
> You stopped reading because you don't like what they had to say. Yes, I literally said that. Glad we are in agreement. > Lyn is a zealot and a shill, and her arguments on basically any topic are trivially wrong. Yes, trust the guy on HN who is consistently negative about crypto about who to listen to. Sorry, but when people are so adamantly negative about something, I tend to run towards it because it often has a lot of interesting value. You have chosen the 'Chief Censor 451' role in life.
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > Yes, trust the guy on HN who is consistently negative about crypto about who to listen to. Sorry, but when people are so adamantly negative about something, I tend to run towards it because it often has a lot of interesting value. You have chosen the 'Chief Censor 451' role in life. I didn't tell you who to read, I suggested you dug around and found someone else who isn't a zealot and a shill. There's good authors out there, this isn't one. I follow a number of pro-crypto authors too, ones who I disagree with but respect. They're out there. Lyn is in my opinion only slightly above Pomp (who I know has retired to spend more time with his fiat) and Saylor (who was promoted to customer).
  - latchkey 4y ago
    Since you haven't provided any "good authors" and only continue with your anti-crypto tirade, then let me guess... Schneier, Diehl and White.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      I didn't provide any because I knew you had no interest. But back on topic, what are your thoughts about wasting a minimum of 64TWh/yr?
      - latchkey 4y ago
        I don't see it as a waste. I don't feel that technology, in any form, is a waste. The world is a better place with technology and I don't feel that we have to be stuck buying things with gold nuggets. I am more than happy trying to "reinvent finance"... because I see and have personally experienced a lot of issues with existing financial systems. Early generations of tech might not be the best, but you have to start somewhere and iterate to a better future. Given that energy use of Bitcoin is literally written into the protocol to decrease over a long period of time, I don't see the big deal of expending energy to get there. Ideally it produces methods of better power distribution, encourages the use of green energy, etc... Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32894814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32894814
        arcticbull 4y ago
        What about technology that just sets oil fields on fire for no particular purpose? Seems pretty wasteful to me. Technology is never platonic. Concepts aren't a waste but their implementation certainly can be. > Early generations of tech might not be the best, but you have to start somewhere and iterate to a better future. Bitcoin is the most obstinate to change on purely ideological grounds. It hasn't materially changed in almost a decade except to move the deck chairs around. This is the time at which one would expect the most change and yet Bitcoin changes the least out of all its peers. This is an intentional decision by both the community and the core team. Adding green energy simply to waste guessing random numbers instead of decarbonizing the grid just adds to the e-waste Bitcoin is responsible for. Power distribution is a solved problem (only 5% of power is wasted in distribution in the US) - the issue is just NIMBYs refusing to put transmission infrastructure down. Bitcoin does not fix this.
samkon 4y ago
Can you elaborate on Lyn Alden? I don’t know enough to comment on her expertise, but I do know that dismissing someone as being trivially wrong on basically any topic is often a sign of not understanding the person’s arguments.
- latchkey 4y ago
  I'd be really surprised if you got a response. Surprise me articbull!
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    What's to say? Lyn is a zealot and will go to any lengths to justify her positions. She's clearly intelligent and completely uninterested in objectivity. She's like if Saylor wasn't completely vacant and instead of posting "MORTGAGE YOUR HOUSE TO BUY BITCOIN" at the top of the market you get 15 page diatribes about why Bitcoin energy usage doesn't matter because "the Fed" and "censorship" and "hard to confiscate" etc etc. None of which has a single thing to do with energy usage. It’s just pages of gish gallop. If you want to listen to someone interesting who isn't just performing mental cartwheels to defend the indefensible, listen to Boaz Sobrado, Mario Gibney from Ledn, Lily Francus, Josh Cincinnati, etc. Lyn is just rewarmed long-form talking points from r/Bitcoin presented uncritically. There’s interesting people in the space but Lyn is more of a millennial William DeVane shilling gold on Fox at 2am with a substack.
    - latchkey 4y ago
      Before he edited and went on a rant, he just said this: "What's to say? Lyn is a zealot and will go to any lengths to justify her positions. She's clearly intelligent and completely uninterested in objectivity. She's like if Saylor were intelligent."
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        I don't think "he hit enter by accident" is quite the gotcha you seem to think it is. You found my criticisms insufficient, so I gave you a long-form version along with a list of folks who actually do have something interesting to say in the space. Then it was too verbose. I suppose there’s no pleasing some folks huh.

latchkey 4y ago

> You stopped reading because you don't like what they had to say. Yes, I literally said that. Glad we are in agreement. > Lyn is a zealot and a shill, and her arguments on basically any topic are trivially wrong. Yes, trust the guy on HN who is consistently negative about crypto about who to listen to. Sorry, but when people are so adamantly negative about something, I tend to run towards it because it often has a lot of interesting value. You have chosen the 'Chief Censor 451' role in life.

arcticbull 4y ago
> Yes, trust the guy on HN who is consistently negative about crypto about who to listen to. Sorry, but when people are so adamantly negative about something, I tend to run towards it because it often has a lot of interesting value. You have chosen the 'Chief Censor 451' role in life. I didn't tell you who to read, I suggested you dug around and found someone else who isn't a zealot and a shill. There's good authors out there, this isn't one. I follow a number of pro-crypto authors too, ones who I disagree with but respect. They're out there. Lyn is in my opinion only slightly above Pomp (who I know has retired to spend more time with his fiat) and Saylor (who was promoted to customer).
- latchkey 4y ago
  Since you haven't provided any "good authors" and only continue with your anti-crypto tirade, then let me guess... Schneier, Diehl and White.
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    I didn't provide any because I knew you had no interest. But back on topic, what are your thoughts about wasting a minimum of 64TWh/yr?
    - latchkey 4y ago
      I don't see it as a waste. I don't feel that technology, in any form, is a waste. The world is a better place with technology and I don't feel that we have to be stuck buying things with gold nuggets. I am more than happy trying to "reinvent finance"... because I see and have personally experienced a lot of issues with existing financial systems. Early generations of tech might not be the best, but you have to start somewhere and iterate to a better future. Given that energy use of Bitcoin is literally written into the protocol to decrease over a long period of time, I don't see the big deal of expending energy to get there. Ideally it produces methods of better power distribution, encourages the use of green energy, etc... Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32894814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32894814
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        What about technology that just sets oil fields on fire for no particular purpose? Seems pretty wasteful to me. Technology is never platonic. Concepts aren't a waste but their implementation certainly can be. > Early generations of tech might not be the best, but you have to start somewhere and iterate to a better future. Bitcoin is the most obstinate to change on purely ideological grounds. It hasn't materially changed in almost a decade except to move the deck chairs around. This is the time at which one would expect the most change and yet Bitcoin changes the least out of all its peers. This is an intentional decision by both the community and the core team. Adding green energy simply to waste guessing random numbers instead of decarbonizing the grid just adds to the e-waste Bitcoin is responsible for. Power distribution is a solved problem (only 5% of power is wasted in distribution in the US) - the issue is just NIMBYs refusing to put transmission infrastructure down. Bitcoin does not fix this.

samkon 4y ago

Can you elaborate on Lyn Alden? I don’t know enough to comment on her expertise, but I do know that dismissing someone as being trivially wrong on basically any topic is often a sign of not understanding the person’s arguments.

latchkey 4y ago
I'd be really surprised if you got a response. Surprise me articbull!
- arcticbull 4y ago
  What's to say? Lyn is a zealot and will go to any lengths to justify her positions. She's clearly intelligent and completely uninterested in objectivity. She's like if Saylor wasn't completely vacant and instead of posting "MORTGAGE YOUR HOUSE TO BUY BITCOIN" at the top of the market you get 15 page diatribes about why Bitcoin energy usage doesn't matter because "the Fed" and "censorship" and "hard to confiscate" etc etc. None of which has a single thing to do with energy usage. It’s just pages of gish gallop. If you want to listen to someone interesting who isn't just performing mental cartwheels to defend the indefensible, listen to Boaz Sobrado, Mario Gibney from Ledn, Lily Francus, Josh Cincinnati, etc. Lyn is just rewarmed long-form talking points from r/Bitcoin presented uncritically. There’s interesting people in the space but Lyn is more of a millennial William DeVane shilling gold on Fox at 2am with a substack.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    Before he edited and went on a rant, he just said this: "What's to say? Lyn is a zealot and will go to any lengths to justify her positions. She's clearly intelligent and completely uninterested in objectivity. She's like if Saylor were intelligent."
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      I don't think "he hit enter by accident" is quite the gotcha you seem to think it is. You found my criticisms insufficient, so I gave you a long-form version along with a list of folks who actually do have something interesting to say in the space. Then it was too verbose. I suppose there’s no pleasing some folks huh.