4 ms·

That’s a matter of opinion. Many happen to believe it is not wasted.

dleeftink 3y ago
But many do. Who is right? [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344921005103 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092134492... [1]: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/14/4254 https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/14/4254 [2]: https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30255-7 https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30255-7
- toenail 3y ago
  Bitcoin uses less than 0.1% of the world's energy. Any time somebody says things like "uses more energy than a country" they are either dishonest or malicious and clearly have an agenda. I'd recommend to try to stick facts, not opinions.
  - ninepoints 3y ago
    Less than .1 % for embarrassingly little volume
    - toenail 3y ago
      Less than .1% to secure more than 500 billion of value. Bitcoin energy usage is primarily to secure the network, not for transaction "volume", but that's a common misconception for people who have yet to learn about bitcoin.
      - ninepoints 3y ago
        You're splitting hairs. If the energy is needed to stave away a 51% attack, that's the energy needed to support the single digit tps monstrosity you have. As for the 500 billion in value, I doubt if everyone liquidated their positions today it'd amount to a figure remotely close to that.
        kristianp 3y ago
        > I doubt if everyone liquidated their positions today it'd amount to a figure remotely close to that. The same goes for any stock in the S&P 500. Market Cap is just a number.
        toenail 3y ago
        If once in bitcoin's history there is 51% attack, all energy that was ever used was used to prevent this one attack. Wow, you totally convinced me.
  - irusensei 3y ago
    Bitcoin or not I don't like the idea of having opinionated people and entities judging what I do with the energy I paid for. Today is proof of work, tomorrow might be high end computer gaming, hopping on a car for a trip etc. You can already see on this very site judgmental comments about carbon usage when you mention a hobby like home lab.
    - throwaway22032 3y ago
      Agree, the entire concept is ridiculous. We don't ration energy usage to the bare essentials in free countries. That's the sort of thing that people attempt to escape.
    - dleeftink 3y ago
      My initial point was to inform the OP about peer-reviewed articles on current waste, not which energy uses are allowed or disallowed, nor a call to judge or curtail individual energy expenditures. As with many things, there is not a single 'right' or wrong, but degrees of evidence. Highlighting current chain inefficiencies allows future versions to better mitigate these energy impacts. Honing any process to use less energy while achieving similar or better results is not an unreasonable goal. Re: your first point, am I right to understand that entities that are able to afford higher usage should have no qualms doing so?
      - toenail 3y ago
        > My initial point was to inform the OP about peer-reviewed "Peer-reviewed" is meaningless if it's not scientific, fact-based. > articles on current waste See, you start with the assumption that it's wasted. You can only come to that conclusion if you assume that bitcoin serves little or no purpose. > Honing any process to use less energy while achieving similar or better results is not an unreasonable goal. Energy usage is what brought humanity from stone tools and caves to the moon, using energy is a good thing that advances civilization. Energy production can be problematic, which bitcoin doesn't do. Proof of work is one of the core innovations, there is no system that has better results.
        3y ago

But many do. Who is right? [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344921005103 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092134492... [1]: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/14/4254 https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/14/4254 [2]: https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30255-7 https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30255-7

toenail 3y ago
Bitcoin uses less than 0.1% of the world's energy. Any time somebody says things like "uses more energy than a country" they are either dishonest or malicious and clearly have an agenda. I'd recommend to try to stick facts, not opinions.
- ninepoints 3y ago
  Less than .1 % for embarrassingly little volume
  - toenail 3y ago
    Less than .1% to secure more than 500 billion of value. Bitcoin energy usage is primarily to secure the network, not for transaction "volume", but that's a common misconception for people who have yet to learn about bitcoin.
    - ninepoints 3y ago
      You're splitting hairs. If the energy is needed to stave away a 51% attack, that's the energy needed to support the single digit tps monstrosity you have. As for the 500 billion in value, I doubt if everyone liquidated their positions today it'd amount to a figure remotely close to that.
      - kristianp 3y ago
        > I doubt if everyone liquidated their positions today it'd amount to a figure remotely close to that. The same goes for any stock in the S&P 500. Market Cap is just a number.
      - toenail 3y ago
        If once in bitcoin's history there is 51% attack, all energy that was ever used was used to prevent this one attack. Wow, you totally convinced me.
- irusensei 3y ago
  Bitcoin or not I don't like the idea of having opinionated people and entities judging what I do with the energy I paid for. Today is proof of work, tomorrow might be high end computer gaming, hopping on a car for a trip etc. You can already see on this very site judgmental comments about carbon usage when you mention a hobby like home lab.
  - throwaway22032 3y ago
    Agree, the entire concept is ridiculous. We don't ration energy usage to the bare essentials in free countries. That's the sort of thing that people attempt to escape.
  - dleeftink 3y ago
    My initial point was to inform the OP about peer-reviewed articles on current waste, not which energy uses are allowed or disallowed, nor a call to judge or curtail individual energy expenditures. As with many things, there is not a single 'right' or wrong, but degrees of evidence. Highlighting current chain inefficiencies allows future versions to better mitigate these energy impacts. Honing any process to use less energy while achieving similar or better results is not an unreasonable goal. Re: your first point, am I right to understand that entities that are able to afford higher usage should have no qualms doing so?
    - toenail 3y ago
      > My initial point was to inform the OP about peer-reviewed "Peer-reviewed" is meaningless if it's not scientific, fact-based. > articles on current waste See, you start with the assumption that it's wasted. You can only come to that conclusion if you assume that bitcoin serves little or no purpose. > Honing any process to use less energy while achieving similar or better results is not an unreasonable goal. Energy usage is what brought humanity from stone tools and caves to the moon, using energy is a good thing that advances civilization. Energy production can be problematic, which bitcoin doesn't do. Proof of work is one of the core innovations, there is no system that has better results.
      - 3y ago