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

21–30 of 170 posts

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

#21

Post by ourlordcaffeine »

westurner wrote: post #7
avmich wrote: post #3

If the price of energy is calculated with corresponding carbon tax included, shouldn't Bitcoin be neutral?

> If the price of energy is calculated with corresponding carbon tax included, shouldn't Bitcoin be neutral? Yes, but there are vastly more energy efficient substitute DLTs with near-zero switching costs. Litecoin and scrypt (instead of AES256), for example. Apply a USD/kWhr threshold across all industries. Is this change (and focus on the external costs of energy production) more the result of penalties or incentive…

>In the US, we have neither carbon taxes nor intraday prices.

Like, no intraday electricity market?

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

#22

Post by bufferoverflow »

Most bitcoin mining is done with hydro or solar electricity, because it's either very cheap or free.

Both are renewable.

And even if it wasn't, who are we too tell people how to spend their energy? What we really need is a proper carbon tax.

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

#24

Post by rib3ye »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #22

Most bitcoin mining is done with hydro or solar electricity, because it's either very cheap or free. Both are renewable. And even if it wasn't, who are we too tell people how to spend their energy? What we really need is a proper carbon tax.

Source?

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

#25

Post by paulgb »

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 gaming has more environmental impact than bitcoin.

This seems dubious.

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

#26

Post by Me1000 »

My problem with these takes is that they're missing the forest through the trees. I don't believe you'll ever be able to solve climate change by shaming people based on their usage of electricity. The problem is not HOW people use electricity, it's how the electricity itself is generated. The electricity might be used to draw triangles on my screen, hash some value, keep me warm in my apartment, or make my car move; each of those things might be objectionable to someone.

Ever since humans learned to harness electricity our usage has increased, and with it our quality of life has also increased. That's not going to change. The only way to prevent electricity usage from causing climate change is to regulate emissions themselves (either through carbon taxes or outright bans: that's for regulators to decide) and invest in alternative forms for electricity generation (that includes nuclear).

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

#27

Post by my123 »

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.

Mining through aka PoW at least does redistribution. PoS means that current owners just get more and more *coin.

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

#28

Post by stouset »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #22

Most bitcoin mining is done with hydro or solar electricity, because it's either very cheap or free. Both are renewable. And even if it wasn't, who are we too tell people how to spend their energy? What we really need is a proper carbon tax.

Even if we accept this argument at face value, every Watt-hour of hydro or solar that goes to mining Bitcoin could have been used to reduce demand for power generated from fossil fuels.

Power generation isn't perfectly fungible, but it's enough so that this argument falls completely on its face. I wish people would stop making it. Bitcoin is an environmental disaster.

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

#29

Post by wmf »

thebean11 wrote: post #17
wmf wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bitcoin: 6 GW

Avalanche: Keep telling me how "securing the network isn't waste".

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

#30

Post by recursive »

minikites wrote: post #13
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.

> Bitcoin is [...]

That's a purpose.

Post reply on HN