3 ms·

Re: BTC carbon footprint From your link: "Spending energy on creating and securing a free monetary system is hardly a waste." This doesn't address any of the

Re: BTC carbon footprint From your link: "Spending energy on creating and securing a free monetary system is hardly a waste." This doesn't address any of the arguments brought up in the article Charles linked to: http://pando.com/2013/12/16/bitcoin-has-a-dark-side-its-carbon-footprint/ http://pando.com/2013/12/16/bitcoin-has-a-dark-side-its-carb...

Permit 13y ago
That's because the arguments are ridiculous. >At today’s value of roughly $1,000 per bitcoin, the electricity consumed by the bitcoin mining ecosystem has an estimated carbon footprint – or total greenhouse gas emissions – of 8.25 megatonnes (8,250,000 tonnes) of CO2 per year, according to research by Bitcarbon.org. That’s 0.03 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas output, or equivalent to that of the nation of Cyprus. If bitcoin’s value reaches $100,000, that impact will reach 3 percent of the world’s total, or that of Germany. At $1 million – which seems farcical but which may not be out of the realm of possibility given the artificially limited bitcoin supply – this impact rises to 8.25 gigatonnes, or 30 percent of today’s global output, and equivalent to that of China and Japan combined. Can someone explain to me the validity of simply multiplying the value of Bitcoin against its current percentage of world's total greenhouse gas output? How is the carbon footprint of Bitcoin attached to the price of Bitcoin? I don't expect that the recent halving in price caused everyone to pack up their mining rigs and returned carbon emissions to 0.015% of global emissions. Not to mention this author somehow manages to keep a straight face when arguing that Bitcoin could possibly account for more emissions than China and Japan.
- ToastyMallows 13y ago
  > Can someone explain to me the validity of simply multiplying the value of Bitcoin against its current percentage of world's total greenhouse gas output? I believe it comes from here: http://bitcarbon.org/faq.html http://bitcarbon.org/faq.html > The Bitcarbon Methodology says that the carbon footprint of the Bitcoin mining network will be proportional to the exchange rate of Bitcoin assuming that 90% of the dollar value of Bitcoin is spent on electricity.
- tonyhb 13y ago
  There's coal-burning power plant specifically for bitcoin mining. (Just kidding)
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  >Can someone explain to me the validity of simply multiplying the value of Bitcoin against its current percentage of world's total greenhouse gas output? The logic is very simple. If electricity costs X dollars per joule, and freshly-mined bitcoins cost 1.1X or 2X or 5X dollars per joule, there will be vast numbers of people taking advantage of this opportunity for arbitrage and making a huge profit. The exact number depends on the price of mining rigs and how risk-averse people are, but a small multiplier doesn't change the underlying logic. >I don't expect that the recent halving in price caused everyone to pack up their mining rigs and returned carbon emissions to 0.015% of global emissions. Most people with marginally profitable equipment would shut it down if the price of bitcoin dropped below the price of electricity. But since mining equipment is expensive and risky and has a large lead time, I'll guess that almost all of them were mining at well over double the cost of electricity, and even after the drop they're still making a profit. Drop bitcoin to $100 and you'll see only the most efficient chips left running at a trickle of income, with the production of mining rigs roughly as efficient as burning dollar bills for warmth. Drop it to $20 and everything shuts down, except for people deliberately losing money in an effort to pop up the network. Edit: added and fixed calculation at the end
  - VMG 13y ago
    Nice, we'll have some very useful space heaters then. Without the toxic byproducts of gold mining.
  - Nursie 13y ago
    I agree with most of the post but as participation drops so does the energy requirement, so it's a bit of a feedback loop. I suspect that hash rate will usually keep the electricity needed for mining just slightly over the price of the electricity, with the price differential made up by enthusiasm and expectation of future increased value of mined coins.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      >I agree with most of the post but as participation drops so does the energy requirement, so it's a bit of a feedback loop. Yeah, there are more details in how participation affects the network and how there will probably not be total abandonment, but it's largely irrelevant to the issue of total electrical consumption so I ignored it. And it's more fun to talk about a super-rapid price change capable of destroying bitcoin entirely than a boring slow drop in network capacity. >future increased value I did think about mentioning the enthusiastic fools that spend $10 today mining bitcoins they expect to be worth $50 some day, instead of spending $4 just buying the same number of bitcoins. But the bigger the price gets, the more marginal I would expect those people to be. And the more I can pretend the majority of bitcointalk doesn't exist, the better.
pantalaimon 13y ago
I still think the carbon footprint of mining gold and diamonds is higher.

Permit 13y ago

That's because the arguments are ridiculous. >At today’s value of roughly $1,000 per bitcoin, the electricity consumed by the bitcoin mining ecosystem has an estimated carbon footprint – or total greenhouse gas emissions – of 8.25 megatonnes (8,250,000 tonnes) of CO2 per year, according to research by Bitcarbon.org. That’s 0.03 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas output, or equivalent to that of the nation of Cyprus. If bitcoin’s value reaches $100,000, that impact will reach 3 percent of the world’s total, or that of Germany. At $1 million – which seems farcical but which may not be out of the realm of possibility given the artificially limited bitcoin supply – this impact rises to 8.25 gigatonnes, or 30 percent of today’s global output, and equivalent to that of China and Japan combined. Can someone explain to me the validity of simply multiplying the value of Bitcoin against its current percentage of world's total greenhouse gas output? How is the carbon footprint of Bitcoin attached to the price of Bitcoin? I don't expect that the recent halving in price caused everyone to pack up their mining rigs and returned carbon emissions to 0.015% of global emissions. Not to mention this author somehow manages to keep a straight face when arguing that Bitcoin could possibly account for more emissions than China and Japan.

ToastyMallows 13y ago
> Can someone explain to me the validity of simply multiplying the value of Bitcoin against its current percentage of world's total greenhouse gas output? I believe it comes from here: http://bitcarbon.org/faq.html http://bitcarbon.org/faq.html > The Bitcarbon Methodology says that the carbon footprint of the Bitcoin mining network will be proportional to the exchange rate of Bitcoin assuming that 90% of the dollar value of Bitcoin is spent on electricity.
tonyhb 13y ago
There's coal-burning power plant specifically for bitcoin mining. (Just kidding)
Dylan16807 13y ago
>Can someone explain to me the validity of simply multiplying the value of Bitcoin against its current percentage of world's total greenhouse gas output? The logic is very simple. If electricity costs X dollars per joule, and freshly-mined bitcoins cost 1.1X or 2X or 5X dollars per joule, there will be vast numbers of people taking advantage of this opportunity for arbitrage and making a huge profit. The exact number depends on the price of mining rigs and how risk-averse people are, but a small multiplier doesn't change the underlying logic. >I don't expect that the recent halving in price caused everyone to pack up their mining rigs and returned carbon emissions to 0.015% of global emissions. Most people with marginally profitable equipment would shut it down if the price of bitcoin dropped below the price of electricity. But since mining equipment is expensive and risky and has a large lead time, I'll guess that almost all of them were mining at well over double the cost of electricity, and even after the drop they're still making a profit. Drop bitcoin to $100 and you'll see only the most efficient chips left running at a trickle of income, with the production of mining rigs roughly as efficient as burning dollar bills for warmth. Drop it to $20 and everything shuts down, except for people deliberately losing money in an effort to pop up the network. Edit: added and fixed calculation at the end
- VMG 13y ago
  Nice, we'll have some very useful space heaters then. Without the toxic byproducts of gold mining.
- Nursie 13y ago
  I agree with most of the post but as participation drops so does the energy requirement, so it's a bit of a feedback loop. I suspect that hash rate will usually keep the electricity needed for mining just slightly over the price of the electricity, with the price differential made up by enthusiasm and expectation of future increased value of mined coins.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    >I agree with most of the post but as participation drops so does the energy requirement, so it's a bit of a feedback loop. Yeah, there are more details in how participation affects the network and how there will probably not be total abandonment, but it's largely irrelevant to the issue of total electrical consumption so I ignored it. And it's more fun to talk about a super-rapid price change capable of destroying bitcoin entirely than a boring slow drop in network capacity. >future increased value I did think about mentioning the enthusiastic fools that spend $10 today mining bitcoins they expect to be worth $50 some day, instead of spending $4 just buying the same number of bitcoins. But the bigger the price gets, the more marginal I would expect those people to be. And the more I can pretend the majority of bitcointalk doesn't exist, the better.

pantalaimon 13y ago

I still think the carbon footprint of mining gold and diamonds is higher.