4 ms·
You did not address the parent's point at all and instead made a pathetic attempt at deflection with a strawman. Both Netflix and Netflix customers benefit, in
by Analemma_ 3y ago
You did not address the parent's point at all and instead made a pathetic attempt at deflection with a strawman. Both Netflix and Netflix customers benefit, in the form of lower electricity bills, if either find a way to use energy more efficiently. And since you can only spend 24 hours a day watching TV, the increased efficiency can only be offset by increased consumption to a minimal extent.
Bitcoin has no incentive to do this, and no ceiling on consumption, since any efficiency gains just get plowed straight into increased mining, and so energy consumption can only ratchet up, forever. Address that claim, please.
- beiller 3y agoThe price of a bitcoin sets an upper bound on consumption of energy where the miner will be in a place that is no longer profitable since energy costs money. On top of this, miners have no upward way to influence the price of bitcoin, only downward (selling of coins, or destruction of trust). If we just properly externalized the cost of CO2 emissions it solves this problem along with many others. So why don't we do that?
- oraphalous 3y agoI believe the argument is that it increases redundancy and resilience of the renewable power supply... That redundancy is otherwise uneconomical to produce (if there isn't the demand). When that redundancy is needed, that power can be redirected from the miners. Presumably the miners are expected to behave and switch off at such times, but there is no reason why that expectation can't be legislated.
- pintxo 3y agoOne can easily structure an energy market to pay for redundancy. There is zero reason why we’d need crypto to fund expansion of renewable energy.
- tcmart14 3y agoIf freezing temps in Texas or Buffalo that lead to deaths don't encourage improving the grid, I don't think crypto will either.