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

281–290 of 1001 posts

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#281

Post by eeZah7Ux »

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.

The economical and political power of the US is the reason for that. And the military might is what backs up the political power.

The same pattern repeats itself in history: those with the biggest army popularize their culture, language and coin. The Roman Empire is a good example.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#282

Post by samuel »

jf22 wrote: post #169

Remember, the earth is burning. Crypto is a huge environmental issue.

It's completely meaningless because GWh aren't interchangeable. A hydro o thermal energy source too far from inhabited places could be used for bitcoin mining and its CO2 footprint would be near zero.

I'm not saying you are wrong but this requires a far more exhaustive analysis.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#283

Post by jsjohnst »

avaldeso wrote: post #145
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...

>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?

Looking at the transaction amounts isn’t very informative, as one is primarily used as a speculative asset, the other two are actual payment methods. A better comparison would be looking at daily trading volume on the stock market.

To help put the difference more in scope, Visa and MasterCard each did over 100 billion payment transactions (nearly 300B combined) in 2019[0], yet Bitcoin still is over 3 orders of magnitude lower at around ~130 million (350k daily average x 365 days). The key distinction is the fact that the average Bitcoin transaction (currently ~$100k) is far higher than the average credit card transaction.

[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/261327/number-of-per-car...

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#284

Post by minikites »

simias wrote: post #41

If this trend continue we may well seal our fate by crunching useless numbers at a global scale for the sake of greed and because we seem incapable of trusting each other. If this was written in a novel we'd deem it a bit too much on the nose really.

We've already destroyed the planet through greed (let's be real, we're not going to fix climate change). If you were a writer you would be writing history, not speculative fiction.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#285

Post by tal8d »

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".

I haven't received my official enthusiast talking points memo, but the obvious solution was proposed years ago: off chain transaction that use smart contracts for settlement on the public ledger. I vaguely remember "store of value" being used for what would more accurately be described as "trust anchor" or "root authority".

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#286

Post by hobofan »

baxtr wrote: post #265

Ok, I have to admit that I am one of those people who knew about BTC very, very early but never bought any. Now, of course I should have mined at least 100 back in the days, but anyways. The reason I have never mined nor bought into it is that I still, to this day struggle to come up with a real reason to do so. Am I getting too old? Do I not see the "huge potential" what it may become? Don't I want to get freaking r…

Determining fully decentralized consensus between arbitrary participants (or at least one of the best approximations of that). In Bitcoin that consensus is limited to transactions, in Ethereum with smart contracts it can be used for much more (though that might require additional layers of incentivation to work properly, depending on the use case).

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#287

Post by iagovar »

px43 wrote: post #254

Please put on your critical thinking hat for a minute. Using electricity is not the same as contributing to carbon emissions. Bitcoin is mostly mined in areas overflowing with excess green energy, and thus contributes negligibly to carbon emissions. The idea that all electricity generation is bad and therefore all electricity usage is bad is completely ridiculous. Instead of working so hard to figure out how to hate…

I think that you miss the tradeoff. By using so much electricity, we have:

1) It's not being stored (where they do). In some places they pump water or use other methods, which help to aliviate demand/offer tension when needed.

2) It's actually pushing prices up in the demand side, which means it's making everything else more expensive.

3) If Bitcoin really becomes widely adopted, this problem will increase by who knows how much.

In a setting where we're worried about the impact of our energy pipeline, the use of bitcoins goes the other way around.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#288

Post by emteycz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #271
px43 wrote: post #254

Please put on your critical thinking hat for a minute. Using electricity is not the same as contributing to carbon emissions. Bitcoin is mostly mined in areas overflowing with excess green energy, and thus contributes negligibly to carbon emissions. The idea that all electricity generation is bad and therefore all electricity usage is bad is completely ridiculous. Instead of working so hard to figure out how to hate…

> Bitcoin is mostly mined in areas overflowing with excess green energy Source? I thought it’s mostly mined in China?

Exactly! Seems like your knowledge about Chinese electricity might be outdated.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#290

Post by golemotron »

baxtr wrote: post #265

Ok, I have to admit that I am one of those people who knew about BTC very, very early but never bought any. Now, of course I should have mined at least 100 back in the days, but anyways. The reason I have never mined nor bought into it is that I still, to this day struggle to come up with a real reason to do so. Am I getting too old? Do I not see the "huge potential" what it may become? Don't I want to get freaking r…

Inflation-proof store of value.
Post reply on HN