Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on Bitcoin

amycastor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 162 posts

Re: Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on Bitcoin

#11

Post by JoeAltmaier »

floor2 wrote: post #10
nickgrosvenor wrote: post #2

I always wondered what will happen when the environmentalists find out about the energy consumption requirements of Bitcoin.

Bit of an aside, but it's so wild that we label people as "environmentalists" and that anyone would place themselves NOT in that group. It seems like 100% of people should want air which is non-toxic, water which is non-toxic and food which is non-toxic. But of course, being an "abolitionist" was a political group in the 1800s but now it's just assumed that 100% of people are anti-slavery, so maybe the optimistic tak…

This black-and-white thinking ignores the spectrum of what constitutes non-toxic. There are those that accept nothing short of perfect purity in air, water and food, a condition which has never existed in a million years of human history. Others are less concerned about humans and more about ecology. Still others value the morals of human-animal relations above issues of nature.

So no, we are not all 'ecologists', not in the same sense anyway. And not to the same degree.

Re: Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on Bitcoin

#12

Post by dhnajsjdnd »

tanseydavid wrote: post #7

https://ark-invest.com/analyst-research/bitcoin-myths/ Claim: Bitcoin wastes too much energy. Counter-Claim: Bitcoin’s energy consumption is more efficient than that of gold and traditional banks.

Counter-counter-claim: The existence of Bitcoin doesn’t reduce the energy use of traditional banks - in fact, it increases it. Bitcoin is not just responsible for the energy used in mining, but also the energy used in its voluminous interactions with traditional finance.

Re: Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on Bitcoin

#13

Post by nickgrosvenor »

floor2 wrote: post #10
nickgrosvenor wrote: post #2

I always wondered what will happen when the environmentalists find out about the energy consumption requirements of Bitcoin.

Bit of an aside, but it's so wild that we label people as "environmentalists" and that anyone would place themselves NOT in that group. It seems like 100% of people should want air which is non-toxic, water which is non-toxic and food which is non-toxic. But of course, being an "abolitionist" was a political group in the 1800s but now it's just assumed that 100% of people are anti-slavery, so maybe the optimistic tak…

So true.

Re: Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on Bitcoin

#15

Post by p1necone »

freerobby wrote: post #8
nickgrosvenor wrote: post #2

I always wondered what will happen when the environmentalists find out about the energy consumption requirements of Bitcoin.

They'll complain and then we'll show them the energy consumption of the finance industry.

Controlling for transaction volume the energy consumption of bitcoin is orders of magnitude higher than the rest of the finance industry.

Re: Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on Bitcoin

#16

Post by kd913 »

anm89 wrote: post #9

Yeah this narrative is played out. Yes bitcoin uses a lot of energy. Almost certainly less than the things it is competing against. And over time it has the potential to decrease that consumption drastically with other protocols, an option traditional banking doesn't possess. Bitcoin is already the greenest form of finance and will get much cleaner in the future.

Bitcoin is the greenest form of finance that gets greener over time?

What nonsense is this?

Already ONE transaction consumes as much power as an entire American household uses for a week.That is 215 kwh of energy for one transaction.

It's using the equivalent of 2.26 million American homes worth of energy for just 330k transactions.

A significant chunk of that is wash trading, ie people buying and selling to themselves to manipulate the price. Is that worth it?

A simple visa or mastercard transaction produces several orders of magnitude less CO2.

For 330k transact

Re: Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on Bitcoin

#17

Post by jlawer »

tanseydavid wrote: post #7

https://ark-invest.com/analyst-research/bitcoin-myths/ Claim: Bitcoin wastes too much energy. Counter-Claim: Bitcoin’s energy consumption is more efficient than that of gold and traditional banks.

There is no effort to bring these to the same base. The global banking system is massive. The article is factoring retail banking, stock & bonds, finance, derivatives, payment processing and a lot more in to "Global Banking". Even if bitcoin was to replace the dollar and gold all at once, much of that infrastructure would still be needed.

Add to this bitcoin does an infinitesimally small number of transactions compared to the global financial system and I am doubtful that on a per value or per transaction basis that it would be within an order of magnitude. A lot of this is inherent to the design, and while it may be able to be evolved or an alternative crypto may not have the caveats, Bitcoin as it stands now is VERY power inefficient.

Re: Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on Bitcoin

#18

Post by bpodgursky »

nickgrosvenor wrote: post #2

I always wondered what will happen when the environmentalists find out about the energy consumption requirements of Bitcoin.

Hopefully everyone with move to Ethereum and other Proof of Stake coins.

(Both for the environment, and my wallet since I'm already deep in Eth)

Re: Tesla spent $1.5B in clean car credits on Bitcoin

#19

Post by Craighead »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #11
floor2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit of an aside, but it's so wild that we label people as "environmentalists" and that anyone would place themselves NOT in that group. It seems like 100% of people should want air which is non-toxic, water which is non-toxic and food which is non-toxic. But of course, being an "abolitionist" was a political group in the 1800s but now it's just assumed that 100% of people are anti-slavery, so maybe the optimistic tak…

This black-and-white thinking ignores the spectrum of what constitutes non-toxic. There are those that accept nothing short of perfect purity in air, water and food, a condition which has never existed in a million years of human history. Others are less concerned about humans and more about ecology. Still others value the morals of human-animal relations above issues of nature. So no, we are not all 'ecologists', no…

I'm curious why you would post such a blatant lie about the air quality post industrial revolution by framing the scenario as "million years of human history"

Why are you posting in bad faith?

Post reply on HN