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

Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

cbeci.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 1001 posts

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#51

Post by knuthsat »

K0nserv wrote: post #22
knuthsat wrote: post #11

Yet the amount of environmental destruction and pollution done by Argentina to support their massive livestock industry is something Bitcoin will never achieve.

Two things can be bad

Cool, I guess this fast function in our code that is measured in ms is of same badness as this slow function in our code that is measured in days.

Given that we are not interested in what these functions do, my choice would be to optimize the fast function.

Electricity used by Argentina generates massive amounts of destruction and pollution. The electricity used by Bitcoin is probably not even close.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#52

Post by xxs »

IgorPartola wrote: post #24
Havoc wrote: post #4

Perhaps not all of it is entirely "wasted" though. I've largely been able to avoid heating this winter as a result of crypto mining. A computer pumping ~300W into the air 24/7 is remarkably effective for a small apartment

Electricity is one of the most inefficient ways to heat a dwelling. I think natural gas is still considered to be several times more efficient but I haven’t looked at it in a few years. Of course if you are also getting benefits from the crypto you mined that will offset the cost.

>Electricity is one of the most inefficient ways to heat a dwelling.

This is not true. Resistive heating is inefficient indeed but not all forms of conversion of electricity are inefficient. Geothermal pumps are very efficient for instance and use electricity only, they can be assisted directly by solar (PV) too.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#53

Post by formerly_proven »

paulpauper wrote: post #25
JustFinishedBSG wrote: post #14

If we could burn bitcoin apologists we would have infinite energy because you are the densest bunch I've ever met https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

i wish I could downvote or report this threat of violence

> you are the densest bunch I've ever met

Indeed!

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#54

Post by ulzeraj »

Jonnax wrote: post #23

From what I understand bitcoin currently has a $20+ transaction fee with a transaction time takes 60 minutes+ With these issues in addition to the high power consumption, how will Bitcoin become a usable currency?

Off chain through Liquid or Lighting networks.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#56

Post by mettamage »

Jonnax wrote: post #23

From what I understand bitcoin currently has a $20+ transaction fee with a transaction time takes 60 minutes+ With these issues in addition to the high power consumption, how will Bitcoin become a usable currency?

IMO it isn't. However, I do see a huge for sending large transactions. In that sense, I don't find it too crazy that Tesla is accepting Bitcoin, because buying a Tesla is a large transaction.

IMO a niche use though.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#57

Post by K0nserv »

ttt0 wrote: post #42
JustFinishedBSG wrote: post #14

If we could burn bitcoin apologists we would have infinite energy because you are the densest bunch I've ever met https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

Damn, I knew the governments hated cryptocurrencies and will try to shut it down at some point, but I haven't realized there was such hostility towards it.

Consider the position of someone who believes bitcoin adds zero(or even negative) value, but consumes astronomical amounts of, often dirty, electricity while the world faces a climate emergency. Further, since this is a technical forum, all of this work to compute trillions of SHA hashes. On the flip side you have a bunch of peopple who rely on bitcoin as an investment vehicle and are therefore very invested in its continued growth.

It's understandable that emotions run high about this topic imo

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#58

Post by roland35 »

peteretep wrote: post #3

Genuine question: how much does this matter if much of it is renewables and cheap hydro? I feel like the negative externalities of using a lot of electricity are very very tied to where that electricity came from

One argument I've heard it's that it increasing the power demand beyond what renewables can handle. Reducing total power consumption would be more ideal.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#59

Post by RGamma »

pradn wrote: post #30
peteey wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Holding gold in the US was illegal due to executive order 6102. There's no need for mental gymnastics of blaming energy. Just one powerful guy says "no" and poof, its illegal. Now laws or logic required. There was an exception for collector coins and jewelry

It's not mental gymnastics to have a legitimate concern about energy usage.

Especially when the economic value provided by that consumption is virtually zero (net negative with externalities).

I liked the idea of bitcoin when it came out, but as per usual things have just gotten out of hand from there.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#60

Post by onion2k »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #33
Jonnax wrote: post #23

From what I understand bitcoin currently has a $20+ transaction fee with a transaction time takes 60 minutes+ With these issues in addition to the high power consumption, how will Bitcoin become a usable currency?

It won't and even BTC enthusiasts have given up on that. They narrative is now that BTC is a "store of value".

It won't

It won't for small transactions. Buying a car or a house with BTC could still be viable in the future.

Post reply on HN