Live data from Hacker News

Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

cbeci.org

211–220 of 1001 posts

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#211

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.

Indeed, it doesn't even need to be global trouble, e.g. if you were a bitcoin enthusiast living in Puerto Rico during 2017, you learned first-hand exactly how useless bitcoin becomes when a major disaster strikes. Cash and gold didn't suffer the same fate.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#212

I'm tired of this BS about Bitcoin and pollution. So tired that yesterday I wrote this [0]. Of course you might be in complete disagreement with me, but please read it and let me know what you think. Be kind. I am trying to have a good conversation about it, not to impose my view. [0]: https://simon.medium.com/bitcoin-and-pollution-the-definitiv...

>VISA handles $30B/day >Mastercard handles $11B/day >Bitcoin handles $10B/day Impressed. I didn't know Bitcoin transactions accounted for such huge volume almost as large as MasterCard. I use MC almost every day for almost everything. Is there people like, entirely living with BTC?

I think it's more like I can create a currency, say that one myCoin is worth $5B, do 2 transactions of 1 myCoin and I can claim that I handle $10B/day.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#214
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how will Bitcoin become a usable currency It won't, it's just a speculative asset.

I can send Bitcoin for free, instantly, trustlessly.

Bitcoin has nearly $20 transaction fees (https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f...) and it takes at least 10 minutes for a transfer to be confirmed (https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time).

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#215
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…

We can only hope so. There are new proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies that don't have this massive environmental downside. The only people who should oppose replacing BTC with some other technologically and ecologically superior coin are bitcoin bagholders trying to protect their "investment" in this Ponzi scheme.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#216
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?

I have no position in Bitcoin, but isn’t it possible for “BTC scrip” to be the money used day to day. With actual blockchain transactions just being used to aggregate at the institutional level?

This is pretty much the way money worked in the 19th century, just with gold instead of BTC. Nobody physically carried or transferred gold to buy a beer. They just used bank notes that were backed by a trusted intermediary holding the physical asset. It might make sense for a bank, or even a very wealthy person, to pay the cost of physically transferring the hard asset. But most just used IOUs that were backed by the underlying hard asset.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#217
post #2

proof of work is immoral if you’re an environmentalist. that’s why tesla acquiring BTC was especially egregious

Exactly my thought. They could have picked a more environment friendly cryptocurrency (e.g. Nano).

It would also had a relative bigger impact on the price, and so Tesla could have made a lot more money with such a move.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#218
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…

I don't think this will work out for several reasons: 1) Peak power usage is when people are awake - this is when you want transactions to happen. 2) This wouldn't reduce the need of peak plants, since you aren't generating power when mining for bitcoin. How would increasing overall energy consumption require less energy generation? If renewables could ramp up/down quickly and not be dependent on external factors - t…

>1) Peak power usage is when people are awake - this is when you want transactions to happen.

Mining is global, so this isn't an issue. It might be peak period in europe right now (2PM UTC) but not in asia or western US.

>This wouldn't reduce the need of peak plants, since you aren't generating power when mining for bitcoin. How would increasing overall energy consumption require less energy generation?

This is a big unknown, because the economics depends entirely on the cost of electricity vs the cost of equipment. If electricity cost dominates, then it'd make sense to shut down mining operations during periods of peak usage (because electricity prices are higher), but if equipment costs dominate then it'd make sense to mine 24/7.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#219

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.

I'd rather invest into something that is highly volatile but almost certainly appreciates over time rather than something that depreciates at a predictable yet increasing rate.

We could discuss the fact that BTC might be overpriced or underpriced, nobody really knows. But that it's going to go up in value (in terms of purchasing power) in the long term is, black swan events aside, almost a certainty because of its engineered stock to flow.

Scarcity is real whether it's physical or digital (as we've seen with art, collectibles or more recently NFTs). Gold is a good store of value because of historically predictable scarcity but it's not predictable with certainty. Bitcoin is. We'll know exactly how many bitcoins are in circulation 10 minutes, 10 days, 10 or even 100 years from now. If anything many will be lost, which will contribute to its scarcity.

Will Bitcoin be replaced by something else in the future? Almost certainly. But let's not forget that unbacked cash has been around for just half a century. Even if Bitcoin is replaced by something 50, 100 years from now that's plenty of time for a couple of generations to use it as a store of value (and payment system).

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#220

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".

I'd rather use Whisky as my store of value. With that you can still have a party when the power goes off.

My bitcoin bought my airplanes, wine cellar, and whiskey collection. It's comparatively very difficult to hold as it's price increases.
Post reply on HN