7 ms·

2.3% to support so little economic activity is just insane. This is the type of tragedy of the commons issue where regulation is needed. For any one actor they

2.3% to support so little economic activity is just insane. This is the type of tragedy of the commons issue where regulation is needed. For any one actor they can justify spending infinity energy as long as their ROI is positive. There are enough justifications out there that it's easy to convince oneself that you're doing the world a favor ("I'm just librating finance and fighting the good fight against the central bankers").

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sgu999 3y ago
I wonder what kind of shape it could take with the current mindset of putting weak signals to steer the market (ie. carbon tax, etc.). Mining bitcoin is far from being the only example of resources waste for pure profit... I can only imagine a vague but serious threat of being accused of ecocide to have an effect.
- Prashanthills 3y ago
  [flagged]
oldpersonintx 3y ago
[dead]
pton_xd 3y ago
> 2.3% to support so little economic activity is just insane. It kind of is! But honestly that's the price we pay for not having sound monetary systems. At this point BTC is, functionally, just an alternative asset that hedges against inflation. As governments print increasingly more money, and the amount of BTC stays the same, each BTC becomes worth more. It's very simple. The demand for such an asset is apparently quite high; high enough to spend up to 2.3% of total US energy. If the world operated on non-inflationary systems there would perhaps still be a small need for BTC, such as providing liberty in committing financial transactions, but I doubt it'd be nearly as big as it is today on that basis alone.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > But honestly that's the price we pay for not having sound monetary systems. Are you implying that BTC is a "sound monetary system"? Because many people will argue with that.
  - pton_xd 3y ago
    Not at all, I'm saying BTC is an asset that hedges against unsound monetary systems.
    - lottin 3y ago
      No, the international monetary system is perfectly functional, as evidenced by the fact that it supports the global economy just fine. Bitcoin is neither an alternative to the international monetary system, nor a hedge. It's a joke. A gambling instrument for financially illiterate people.
      - pton_xd 3y ago
        > No, the international monetary system is perfectly functional, as evidenced by the fact that it supports the global economy just fine. Obviously it is functional, I never said it wasn't! Inflationary systems have a lot of benefits -- they encourage consumption, erode the value of debt over time, etc. But there are downsides, too. Savings and purchasing power are destroyed over time. They encourage investment in hard assets like real estate and BTC to protect wealth. And so you get some waste, too. There is no free lunch.
        lottin 3y ago
        The international monetary system isn't a deflationary system per se. It can accommodate a variety of monetary policies, including deflationary policies. As far as bitcoin being a hard asset, this isn't entirely correct either. Not only does bitcoin not generate income, but it consumes income. You see, the bitcoin network is extremely expensive to maintain, and the owners of bitcoins are the ones who bear the cost. Either they pay with fees -unlikely-, or they'll pay by losing value in their investment -most likely. There's no way around it.
bcrl 3y ago
As I posted earlier this week: Each bitcoin mined in the US directly results in more than 264 metric tonnes of CO2. This is based on the following rough calculation: 1.65 billion metric tonnes * 2% / (900 bitcoins per day * 38% * 365 days) Based on 2022 CO2 emissions from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 .
Vincentduff 3y ago
[dead]
earthling8118 3y ago
The amount of economic activity it supports is somewhat of a poor measure without further information. Yes, it is a complete waste in its current form. But that doesn't strictly mean that the electricity usage will scale with the percentage of economic activity that takes place using it. I would be interested in knowing how this number would change if it supported most economic activity. Surely it would go up, but I doubt it would do so linearly.
Drblessing 3y ago
Right? Only 2.3% to support a decentralized, permissionless, censorship-resistant currency is such a bargain! It's almost like if it wasn't valuable to society than it wouldn't make economic sense. And here I thought America was a market economy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sgu999 3y ago

I wonder what kind of shape it could take with the current mindset of putting weak signals to steer the market (ie. carbon tax, etc.). Mining bitcoin is far from being the only example of resources waste for pure profit... I can only imagine a vague but serious threat of being accused of ecocide to have an effect.

Prashanthills 3y ago
[flagged]

oldpersonintx 3y ago

[dead]

pton_xd 3y ago

> 2.3% to support so little economic activity is just insane. It kind of is! But honestly that's the price we pay for not having sound monetary systems. At this point BTC is, functionally, just an alternative asset that hedges against inflation. As governments print increasingly more money, and the amount of BTC stays the same, each BTC becomes worth more. It's very simple. The demand for such an asset is apparently quite high; high enough to spend up to 2.3% of total US energy. If the world operated on non-inflationary systems there would perhaps still be a small need for BTC, such as providing liberty in committing financial transactions, but I doubt it'd be nearly as big as it is today on that basis alone.

FireBeyond 3y ago
> But honestly that's the price we pay for not having sound monetary systems. Are you implying that BTC is a "sound monetary system"? Because many people will argue with that.
- pton_xd 3y ago
  Not at all, I'm saying BTC is an asset that hedges against unsound monetary systems.
  - lottin 3y ago
    No, the international monetary system is perfectly functional, as evidenced by the fact that it supports the global economy just fine. Bitcoin is neither an alternative to the international monetary system, nor a hedge. It's a joke. A gambling instrument for financially illiterate people.
    - pton_xd 3y ago
      > No, the international monetary system is perfectly functional, as evidenced by the fact that it supports the global economy just fine. Obviously it is functional, I never said it wasn't! Inflationary systems have a lot of benefits -- they encourage consumption, erode the value of debt over time, etc. But there are downsides, too. Savings and purchasing power are destroyed over time. They encourage investment in hard assets like real estate and BTC to protect wealth. And so you get some waste, too. There is no free lunch.
      - lottin 3y ago
        The international monetary system isn't a deflationary system per se. It can accommodate a variety of monetary policies, including deflationary policies. As far as bitcoin being a hard asset, this isn't entirely correct either. Not only does bitcoin not generate income, but it consumes income. You see, the bitcoin network is extremely expensive to maintain, and the owners of bitcoins are the ones who bear the cost. Either they pay with fees -unlikely-, or they'll pay by losing value in their investment -most likely. There's no way around it.

bcrl 3y ago

As I posted earlier this week: Each bitcoin mined in the US directly results in more than 264 metric tonnes of CO2. This is based on the following rough calculation: 1.65 billion metric tonnes * 2% / (900 bitcoins per day * 38% * 365 days) Based on 2022 CO2 emissions from https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 .

Vincentduff 3y ago

[dead]

earthling8118 3y ago

The amount of economic activity it supports is somewhat of a poor measure without further information. Yes, it is a complete waste in its current form. But that doesn't strictly mean that the electricity usage will scale with the percentage of economic activity that takes place using it. I would be interested in knowing how this number would change if it supported most economic activity. Surely it would go up, but I doubt it would do so linearly.

Drblessing 3y ago

Right? Only 2.3% to support a decentralized, permissionless, censorship-resistant currency is such a bargain! It's almost like if it wasn't valuable to society than it wouldn't make economic sense. And here I thought America was a market economy.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]