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

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#181

Post by jiriknesl »

Nursie wrote: post #17
dstick wrote: post #7

Question that came to mind after reading the headline: could this become a future reason for governments to criminalise the trading / use of Bitcoin because of negative environmental effects? On the surface it seems the value of Bitcoin is directly tied to its energy consumption and thus environmental harm. I get that Bitcoin itself is decentralised and cannot be banned outright. But could it be neutered in such a wa…

If governments banned the on/off ramps to normal currency, then yes it would be effectively neutered. There is an audience that wouldn't care, but it's a small audience.

Yes, but the narrative is that Bitcoin is innovation and any government against it is basically against innovation.

If I wanted to neutralize it, I would do something like Bait&Switch. Support banks running own cryptos until point where general public will see no difference between BTC and private cryptocurrencies and leave BTC users with their wallets and even when it will remain legal and everything, the "crypto revolution" would be taken by usual suspects (the establishment).

However, I wouldn't like to see it. I prefer world currency to be run by nerds over bankers and politicians.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#183

Post by alexmingoia »

chrisco255 wrote: post #108
IgorPartola wrote: post #10

Slightly off topic, but does anyone have any good resources on how alternative consensus protocols work, like proof of stake and proof of importance? I either see really simplistic explanations or ones that assume a lot of domain knowledge. I also recently saw a crypto coin that claims to be energy efficient, and I don’t quite understand how that’s possible without the possibility of a 50.1% attack.

Proof of stake is relatively simple. You agree to stake a minimum amount of tokens (decided on by the network) and you get to run a node and validate transactions. If you attest to a malicious block and other validators call you out on it, you get slashed (i.e. you lose some portion of your stake, if not all of it): https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms... One of the problems with it is that it…

How is the correct chain decided?

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#184

Post by nickysielicki »

maclured wrote: post #116
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's going to take some pretty big balls to dump your money into bitcoin instead of gold or cash the next time the stock market crashes. Then we'll see how good a store of value it is.

Big balls, surely, but are we waiting to see that happen, or haven't we seen that happen? The stock market has settled around ATHs, not pushing too far down or up. Meanwhile, 40% of all US currency ever minted has been printed in the last 365 days [1], and Bitcoin is worth nearly $50k.

Maybe it's just me, but it's clear to me that markets crashed, the shockwave just hasn't been felt by everyone yet.

[1]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#185

Post by Havoc »

matchbok wrote: post #49
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

I think you misspelled remarkably. It's actually spelled "terribly".

I'm sitting here in a tshirt despite it being near freezing outside. Call it what you like...works for me

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#186

Post by rorykoehler »

auggierose wrote: post #139
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

But it doesn't have any value. Except that some people think it has. In times of truly global trouble, nobody will accept bitcoins as payment for bread.

The same could be said it FIAT currencies. It’s all an illusion/religion.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#187

Post by nly »

progforlyfe wrote: post #126

If I understand the system correctly, the vast majority of bitcoin energy consumption comes from the mining process, which is not strictly required (at least not anymore, with 18+ million BTC now mined and in circulation). I can spin up the bitcoin software on my home PC to participate in the network, sending and receiving bitcoin, and confirming some transactions, and the power consumed would be low. Much less than…

No, the expensive mining process is required to build the block chain and prevent double spending. It is also used to determine who gets block rewards (transaction fees). Bitcoin will continue to consume more and more power forever

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#188

Post by alisonkisk »

mettamage wrote: post #56
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.

I can't see Tesla BTC as anything more than a marketing gimmick for their computer geek clientele and fan base. Even if it's a logistical disaster, they probably make it back in stock purchases from true believers.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#189

Post by sneak »

eternauta3k wrote: post #129
yrral wrote: post #83

This is a rehash of a previous post of mine regarding electricity consumption: Back in the days where all our electricity came from fossil fuels, I completely agree that marginal electricity usage was bad for the environment. However I think that thought has persisted with us even though it is no longer true 100% of the time. With renewables sometimes the marginal cost of electricity to our environment is near 0 or e…

Only turning on miners when electricity is cheap lowers your ROI.

I think that depends entirely on the delta between "cheap" and "normal" electricity.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#190

Post by celticninja »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #8
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

Is there reason to believe even a majority comes from renewable sources? And then, how much of that clean energy could be powering other things which are instead using fossil fuels?

A lot of mining is done close to hydro dams, this power was in some cases waste power that would be unused. So it is swings and roundabouts, I don't think any new coal power stations are being built to mine bitcoin but bitcoin miners have taken advantage of excess electricity production to site their mines where power is cheapest.
Post reply on HN