3 ms·

It's a fair point and I won't argue it uses a lot of energy. In fairness, by some accounts (I can't personally attest to their accuracy) more than 50% of that

It's a fair point and I won't argue it uses a lot of energy. In fairness, by some accounts (I can't personally attest to their accuracy) more than 50% of that is already from renewables, eg. https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/renewable-energy-sources-that-will-power-the-future-of-bitcoin-mining https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/renewable-energy-sources-tha... I do know from experience there are mining outfits that have located themselves where the energy was going to waste anyway. But it doesn't excuse the huge use of power, and I wouldn't be surprised if over the long term a more efficient algorithm like proof-of-stake displaces proof-of-work. It's basic physics once you can do the same thing for less energy, and technologies more efficient than their predecessors tend to win out. If by that time there's a popular proof-of-whatever coin with a similar focus, lean feature set and works-as-expected usability as Bitcoin I would definitely consider switching to it! Edit: To be clear I share your admiration for Ethereum migrating to proof-of-work, my concerns and contrasts in the earlier post are more around protocol bloat and client software user-experience.

pasc1878 3y ago
50% of it is renewable is NOT in any way a defence. It is in effect totally from fossil. 50% is self admitted. The other 50% - if no bitcoin mining then that 50% would go to replace fossil fuels in other places. Saving that amount of fossil fuel Thus bitcoin mining increase total fossil fuel usage (and it is the total that matters not what each thing does) by the full amount of the enrgy minig uses.
- johanneskanybal 3y ago
  Yea that’s not how the power grid works though. It’s not a fungible resource that can be used at a time and place of your chosing. So it’s wasted or used right there and then.
lxgr 3y ago
> I do know from experience there are mining outfits that have located themselves where the energy was going to waste anyway. This is a myth. Energy, in a useable-to-humans form, does not generally "go to waste". Harvesting any kind of energy requires resources (windmills, solar panels, gas turbines, heat pumps, ...), many of them non-renewable themselves, as well as labor, that could always be deployed elsewhere.
- rkagerer 3y ago
  Without dropping too far down the rabbit hole of semantics, here's an example of a project which put "waste" byproducts to use which would otherwise be flared off by producers, and reportedly lowered CO2-equivalent emissions by as much as 63% compared with continued flaring: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2261931-bitcoin-miners-help-us-oil-producers-cut-flaring https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2261931-bitcoin-miners-he... Some will argue it becomes a crutch incentivizing oil to keep producing, but it's not like the plant was uneconomical or likely to close down before the recapture outfit came along. TeraWulf is another interesting one - they plug directly into a nuclear plant and help smooth the demand curve off-peak (reactors can't quickly ramp up and down so the energy produced would otherwise go unused / unpaid for). Discussed in this article along with a few others: https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/07/04/4-bitcoin-miners-benefiting-the-grid-and-mitigating-carbon-emissions/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/07/04/4-bit...

pasc1878 3y ago

50% of it is renewable is NOT in any way a defence. It is in effect totally from fossil. 50% is self admitted. The other 50% - if no bitcoin mining then that 50% would go to replace fossil fuels in other places. Saving that amount of fossil fuel Thus bitcoin mining increase total fossil fuel usage (and it is the total that matters not what each thing does) by the full amount of the enrgy minig uses.

johanneskanybal 3y ago
Yea that’s not how the power grid works though. It’s not a fungible resource that can be used at a time and place of your chosing. So it’s wasted or used right there and then.

lxgr 3y ago

> I do know from experience there are mining outfits that have located themselves where the energy was going to waste anyway. This is a myth. Energy, in a useable-to-humans form, does not generally "go to waste". Harvesting any kind of energy requires resources (windmills, solar panels, gas turbines, heat pumps, ...), many of them non-renewable themselves, as well as labor, that could always be deployed elsewhere.

rkagerer 3y ago
Without dropping too far down the rabbit hole of semantics, here's an example of a project which put "waste" byproducts to use which would otherwise be flared off by producers, and reportedly lowered CO2-equivalent emissions by as much as 63% compared with continued flaring: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2261931-bitcoin-miners-help-us-oil-producers-cut-flaring https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2261931-bitcoin-miners-he... Some will argue it becomes a crutch incentivizing oil to keep producing, but it's not like the plant was uneconomical or likely to close down before the recapture outfit came along. TeraWulf is another interesting one - they plug directly into a nuclear plant and help smooth the demand curve off-peak (reactors can't quickly ramp up and down so the energy produced would otherwise go unused / unpaid for). Discussed in this article along with a few others: https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/07/04/4-bitcoin-miners-benefiting-the-grid-and-mitigating-carbon-emissions/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2023/07/04/4-bit...