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

Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

markets.businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 170 posts

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#11

Post by ardy42 »

dubcanada wrote: post #5
sjtindell wrote: post #4

I’m biased but I wonder whether these outlets write more about Bitcoin hurting the environment than oil companies and other energy producers pushing back so hard on alternative energy.

Yes, articles tend to go in groups. Everyone focuses on one topic and then changes. At the moment the topic seems to be Bitcoin, since it's currently skyrocketing due to Tesla. But don't worry, they will return to gas/oil soon.

Also the environmental impact of Bitcoin is more novel and thus more interesting than the well-known environmental impact of gas/oil.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#12

Post by iwubu99 »

pjfin123 wrote: post #2

I wonder if Bitcoin could ever migrate to Ethereum technology/proof of stake? It seems like a good idea but the Bitcoin community seems very resistant to change (see block size debate).

Yup, proof of stake is the simple solution to this. BTC community won't be able to justify it eventually. Unless we get free energy in the mean time lol

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#13

Post by minikites »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #8

Video gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin. So do porn sites. Bitcoin just seems like an easy target because people are more directly profiting off of it.

Video games and porn sites serve some purpose. Bitcoin is virtual Monopoly money for libertarians.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#14

Post by wmf »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #8

Video gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin. So do porn sites. Bitcoin just seems like an easy target because people are more directly profiting off of it.

Gaming and computer hardware is ruthlessly optimized to be as energy-efficient as possible while Bitcoin mining is specifically designed to waste energy even though more efficient ways (PoS) exist.

Cable boxes used to waste massive amounts of energy (because GI/SA don't pay your power bill) and eventually the government stepped in to force efficiency. So no, Bitcoin isn't being unfairly singled out for criticism.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#15

Post by n4r9 »

oarabbus_ wrote: post #8

Video gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin. So do porn sites. Bitcoin just seems like an easy target because people are more directly profiting off of it.

The other reason is that the average person does not obviously derive value from its existence.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#16

Post by kaonwarb »

For this critique to be meaningful, it should compare vs. alternative approaches of storing and transferring value - including cash, which can’t possibly be environmentally friendly. Not just in production, but storage, transfer (I wonder what the MPG is on those Brinks trucks), and so forth.

I suspect Bitcoin still comes out behind, but at least it would be a meaningful comparison.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#17

Post by thebean11 »

wmf wrote: post #14
oarabbus_ wrote: post #8

Video gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin. So do porn sites. Bitcoin just seems like an easy target because people are more directly profiting off of it.

Gaming and computer hardware is ruthlessly optimized to be as energy-efficient as possible while Bitcoin mining is specifically designed to waste energy even though more efficient ways (PoS) exist. Cable boxes used to waste massive amounts of energy (because GI/SA don't pay your power bill) and eventually the government stepped in to force efficiency. So no, Bitcoin isn't being unfairly singled out for criticism.

Bitcoin mining does not waste energy in the same way cable boxes did. The more energy is "wasted" the more secure the network is.

This isn't an argument that it's worth the energy expenditure, or that there aren't alternate ways to get the same level of security, but it's an apples and oranges comparison.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#18

Post by minikites »

ardy42 wrote: post #11
dubcanada wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, articles tend to go in groups. Everyone focuses on one topic and then changes. At the moment the topic seems to be Bitcoin, since it's currently skyrocketing due to Tesla. But don't worry, they will return to gas/oil soon.

Also the environmental impact of Bitcoin is more novel and thus more interesting than the well-known environmental impact of gas/oil.

Exactly, the only people who think oil/gas/coal are fine are industry shills and the people who believe them.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#19

Post by thebean11 »

wmf wrote: post #9
pjfin123 wrote: post #2

I wonder if Bitcoin could ever migrate to Ethereum technology/proof of stake? It seems like a good idea but the Bitcoin community seems very resistant to change (see block size debate).

Bitcoin will never change. In the future we'll probably see large amounts of BTC wrapped on Ethereum/Avalanche for DeFi trading.

Bitcoin has undergone pretty massive updates in the last few years. Proof of stake doesn't seem that far fetched honestly.

Re: Bitcoin's fundamental value is negative given its environmental impact

#20

Post by grumple »

kaonwarb wrote: post #16

For this critique to be meaningful, it should compare vs. alternative approaches of storing and transferring value - including cash, which can’t possibly be environmentally friendly. Not just in production, but storage, transfer (I wonder what the MPG is on those Brinks trucks), and so forth. I suspect Bitcoin still comes out behind, but at least it would be a meaningful comparison.

"Cash" is usually just 1s and 0s these days, at least in the US, isn't it? It doesn't require mining, unlike bitcoin.
Post reply on HN