3 ms·

> Mining BTC has a carbon footprint from hell https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_it_not_a_waste_of_energy.3...* https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_it_not_a_waste_

> Mining BTC has a carbon footprint from hell https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_it_not_a_waste_of_energy.3...* https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_it_not_a_waste_of_energy.3... But what does the "answer" in FAQ say? Spending energy on creating and securing a free monetary system is hardly a waste. Also, services necessary for the operation of currently widespread monetary systems, such as banks and credit card companies, also spend energy, arguably more than Bitcoin would.* i.e., nothing really. Not even a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the power densities (either per putative stored value unit, or per transaction volume) of BTC v. fiat currencies. Just a flat assertions like "...is hardly a waste", or "...arguably..."

Nursie 13y ago
>> Spending energy on creating and securing a free monetary system is hardly a waste. Depends on your definition of waste. If you don't value BTC or agree with its crazy libertarian ideals at all then it's a waste by definition. If you can imagine secure crypto-currencies with different characteristics (centralised, controlled supply) then you can make them in a way that doesn't require all this constant make-work, and what's more you can make them support offline transactions and all sorts of other cool stuff. But that's only if you don't subscribe to libertarian ideals, which I don't.
nkuttler 13y ago
Thanks for your input. The problem is that the linked article (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...) starts with wrong assumptions. > At today’s value of roughly $1,000 per bitcoin, the electricity consumed by the bitcoin mining ecosystem has an estimated carbon footprint [...] [of] 0.03 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas output [...] If bitcoin’s value reaches $100,000, that impact will reach 3 percent of the world’s total [...]. The value of bitcoin is not at all related to the network's energy consumption. It's not even related to the network's hashrate, and even if it was, mining is becoming more and more energy-efficient. It's hard to take the article seriously after this.
- bonemachine 13y ago
  "...that of Germany", no less. Good point -- indeed, the article was pretty hard to take seriously after that point.
  - asciimo 13y ago
    The link to BTC value comes from the author's speculation that miners will be willing to pay 90% of that value to mine it. So at $1000 USD, a miner will be willing to use $900 USD in energy. (Unless I missed something he completely ignores the cost of hardware.)

Nursie 13y ago

>> Spending energy on creating and securing a free monetary system is hardly a waste. Depends on your definition of waste. If you don't value BTC or agree with its crazy libertarian ideals at all then it's a waste by definition. If you can imagine secure crypto-currencies with different characteristics (centralised, controlled supply) then you can make them in a way that doesn't require all this constant make-work, and what's more you can make them support offline transactions and all sorts of other cool stuff. But that's only if you don't subscribe to libertarian ideals, which I don't.

nkuttler 13y ago

Thanks for your input. The problem is that the linked article (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...) starts with wrong assumptions. > At today’s value of roughly $1,000 per bitcoin, the electricity consumed by the bitcoin mining ecosystem has an estimated carbon footprint [...] [of] 0.03 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas output [...] If bitcoin’s value reaches $100,000, that impact will reach 3 percent of the world’s total [...]. The value of bitcoin is not at all related to the network's energy consumption. It's not even related to the network's hashrate, and even if it was, mining is becoming more and more energy-efficient. It's hard to take the article seriously after this.

bonemachine 13y ago
"...that of Germany", no less. Good point -- indeed, the article was pretty hard to take seriously after that point.
- asciimo 13y ago
  The link to BTC value comes from the author's speculation that miners will be willing to pay 90% of that value to mine it. So at $1000 USD, a miner will be willing to use $900 USD in energy. (Unless I missed something he completely ignores the cost of hardware.)