Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index • Hacker News Board

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#241

Post by altcognito » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

base698 wrote: post #86

markyc wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that ship has sailed long ago. it is now seen as a replacement for gold and a hedge against inflation

It was always a hedge on inflation. The genesis block message: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/genesis-block.asp Nakamoto instilled within the Block's raw data: "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks."

So basically the entire premise is undermining confidence in the existing system of capitalism and Democracy.

"Your money isn't safe in banks", and a healthy dose of making it easier to launder money.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#242

Post by abledon » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

mkl wrote: post #103

abledon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SpaceX could probably help usher in a new age where we have mining nodes in space, big solar arrays (100 or so) powering a small 100-GPU cluster or ASIC cluster....

It would be far cheaper and easier to do this on Earth. There's plenty of sunny desert, heat dissipation is much easier, broken things can be repaired, etc.

ya but heat would dissipate into space and not contribute to global warming?

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#243

Post by tal8d » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:27 PM UTC

jiriknesl wrote: post #181

Nursie wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 re…

Canada actually tried that, at least once - maybe twice. When it became clear that the government was talking about a pre-mined, non-transparent, centralized fedcoin - everybody laughed and then ignored it.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#244

Post by SiempreViernes » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:28 PM UTC

alfl wrote: post #229

Energy consumption doesn't cause emissions. Energy production causes emissions. Reducing consumption (by shaming it, in this case) means less investment in production, because there's less demand. This could slow the green energy transition.

Uh, less consumption also causes less production, maybe you missed that bit?

And historically consumption has not lead to the green energy transition on its own, so it's a bit weird to assume it does it now.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#245

Post by jiriknesl » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:28 PM UTC

itsoktocry wrote: post #199

jiriknesl wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Will anyone criminalise the US army because they use lots of energy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_Sta... The answer: they might try, but good luck with that.

> Will anyone criminalise the US army because they use lots of energy? Ah yes, the old trope that people use the US dollar because they are forced to. Meanwhile, back in reality, people around the world are desperate to get their hands on USD for commerce, because it's easily transacted, accepted and valued anywhere . You know, kinda like Bitcoin purports to be, but way more common.

Of course, it is everyone's taste. One values USD more and other BTC more. Objectively, so far, BTC was a better investment. And given some 80% of BTC was already mined and there will be no more BTC ever while 20% of USD was printed this year (edit: sorry, in 2020), I undestand why some people stash Bitcoin. I have maybe 0.5% of my net worth in it, but I am very happy for those 0.5%.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#246

Post by purple_ferret » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #40

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...

reads like another whataboutism article

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#247

Post by ghego1 » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:29 PM UTC

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…

I was thinking exactly the same. I would be in favor tbh.

If the government is allowed to dictate how my car must be built in order to make it more environmentally friendly, I don't see why it shouldn't be able to dictate how my blockchain must be built in order to make it environmentally sustainable.

This wouldn't mean banning blockchain altogether. It would entail banning only those forms of distributed consensus that are not energy efficient.

Proof of work (POW) is by definition inefficient from an energy perspective. You have to prove to have spent a lot of resources to be trusted. There's no excuse for this from an environment point of view, even if, admittedly, from a technological perspective is quite a marvel.

I wouldn't be surprised to know that those defending bitcoin on this front are biased because they hold some quantity of crypto based on POW.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#248

Post by lxgr » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

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…

> Bitcoin mining only cares about the cost of electricity at a given time

I think this is the fallacy in your argument:

In the absence of a block reward, Bitcoin mining seems like a purely demand-driven activity. The demand is people wanting their transactions be confirmed on-chain, which seems entirely uncorrelated with electricity prices.

On the other side, you have miners wanting to operate at marginal profit.

Total mining expenses would therefore be driven to always exactly match the total monetary value of being able to transact. In other words, the demand for transaction confirmation drives the demand for mining, which in turn drives the demand for electricity.

In a world in which the only electricity sources available are renewable, I'd agree that Bitcoin mining has no net impact on the environment. In any other world, some of that demand for electricity will be satisfied using fossil fuels, directly or indirectly.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#249

Post by oakpond » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

doomroot wrote: post #88

daptaq wrote: 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.

It's not entirely trustless. You trust the security of the system.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#250

Post by FabHK » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 2:30 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #201

FabHK wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bitcoin mining be kind of a load balancer Given that the difficulty adjusts only every 2 weeks, that means that the time to find a block will vary enormously during the day as the demand/supply imbalance varies. That'll make BTC even more annoying than it is already (it's currently peak electricity demand where most of the miners are sitting, so I'll have to wait 3 hours for my 6 confirms?). At any rate, you're bas…

>Given that the difficulty adjusts only every 2 weeks, that means that the time to find a block will vary enormously during the day as the demand/supply imbalance varies. Isn't this a non-issue because mining is global? Peak time in europe doesn't mean it's peak time in north america or east asia.

Interesting question. If miners are approximately evenly distributed across timezones, it could be indeed the case, say, that those where demand is currently at its peak (following the sunlight) switch off their mining as electricity is expensive, and then switch back on as the sun leaves and electricity demand (and prices) fall.

I had assumed that mining is concentrated more. Empirical question.