4 ms·

> If crypto didn't exist, another industry would need to be shutdown. This makes literally zero sense. Mining adds extra load that wouldn’t otherwise exist. If

> If crypto didn't exist, another industry would need to be shutdown. This makes literally zero sense. Mining adds extra load that wouldn’t otherwise exist. If crypto didn’t exist, the Texas grid would experience reduced load. This should be obvious: if paying these miners to stop has the desired effect of reducing the load on the grid, miners not existing would surely have a similar effect. > their argument applies to every industry. Most other industries provide actual societal value, unlike crypto. And to hear off the rebuttal I already hear coming: no, just because it has a market cap doesn’t mean it’s adding value to society. As a trivial counterexample, Mexican cartels are undoubtedly worth billions but I think it’s pretty inarguable we’d all be better off without them.

brutusborn 3y ago
Does your argument work at the limits? E.g. if all non-essential industry in Texas didn't exist, would you expect the same amount of investment in energy production and thus an abundance of energy for 'socially valuable' uses? No: if there was no industrial demand there would be no need for huge renewable investments. Your counter-factual doesn't make sense because you assume that additional demand has no effect on supply and vice-versa. Electricity generation isn't some constant that is unrelated to industrial needs.
- wolfendin 3y ago
  yes. If there isn’t enough supply to satisfy things like residential demand then you loose demand (and therefore re revinue
- stouset 3y ago
  > if all non-essential industry in Texas didn't exist, would you expect the same amount of investment in energy production and thus an abundance of energy for 'socially valuable' uses? If those industries are using that power that Texas has invested in producing, then how is it "abundantly available" for socially valuable uses? Yes, without things like crypto, we probably would have somewhat less investment in green energy sources. We'd also be burning less coal. Given possible futures with "more fossil fuels and more renewables" versus "fossil fuels coal and fewer renewables", I'll pick the latter every time. The goal isn't more renewables, it's replacing fossil fuel with renewables. Worse, those renewables being used up by cryptocurrencies are going to be the optimally-located renewables with the lowest installation and maintenance costs for the highest energy output (think: most reliable wind at high speeds, least cloud cover and highest sun angle). As we do continue to transition further away from fossil fuels, every additional installation is going to be in locations marginally less competitive than the ones that came before. This means that transitioning the non-crypto loads will take longer and be less cost-effective than if crypto magically disappeared overnight.
stevenwliao 3y ago
> if paying these miners to stop has the desired effect of reducing the load on the grid, miners not existing would surely have a similar effect. In a privatized system, a large, predictable, static load would attract additional infrastructure. Assuming how that's how Texas' system works, if these miners did not exist, the peak capacity would be lower.
- stouset 3y ago
  What on earth is the value of this extra peak capacity if it's being used by miners for low (or realistically, negative) value work?

brutusborn 3y ago

Does your argument work at the limits? E.g. if all non-essential industry in Texas didn't exist, would you expect the same amount of investment in energy production and thus an abundance of energy for 'socially valuable' uses? No: if there was no industrial demand there would be no need for huge renewable investments. Your counter-factual doesn't make sense because you assume that additional demand has no effect on supply and vice-versa. Electricity generation isn't some constant that is unrelated to industrial needs.

wolfendin 3y ago
yes. If there isn’t enough supply to satisfy things like residential demand then you loose demand (and therefore re revinue
stouset 3y ago
> if all non-essential industry in Texas didn't exist, would you expect the same amount of investment in energy production and thus an abundance of energy for 'socially valuable' uses? If those industries are using that power that Texas has invested in producing, then how is it "abundantly available" for socially valuable uses? Yes, without things like crypto, we probably would have somewhat less investment in green energy sources. We'd also be burning less coal. Given possible futures with "more fossil fuels and more renewables" versus "fossil fuels coal and fewer renewables", I'll pick the latter every time. The goal isn't more renewables, it's replacing fossil fuel with renewables. Worse, those renewables being used up by cryptocurrencies are going to be the optimally-located renewables with the lowest installation and maintenance costs for the highest energy output (think: most reliable wind at high speeds, least cloud cover and highest sun angle). As we do continue to transition further away from fossil fuels, every additional installation is going to be in locations marginally less competitive than the ones that came before. This means that transitioning the non-crypto loads will take longer and be less cost-effective than if crypto magically disappeared overnight.

stevenwliao 3y ago

> if paying these miners to stop has the desired effect of reducing the load on the grid, miners not existing would surely have a similar effect. In a privatized system, a large, predictable, static load would attract additional infrastructure. Assuming how that's how Texas' system works, if these miners did not exist, the peak capacity would be lower.

stouset 3y ago
What on earth is the value of this extra peak capacity if it's being used by miners for low (or realistically, negative) value work?