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

31–40 of 170 posts

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

#31

Post by paulgb »

Me1000 wrote: post #26

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;…

This would be a reasonable stance if Bitcoin were just another activity, but it’s unique in its energy profile. What other technology is designed so that energy efficiency improvements are absorbed and nullified (through the difficulty adjustment mechanism)?

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

#32

Post by a1369209993 »

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's purpose is to provide a global append-only (ie, non-censorable) database. It doesn't actually serve that purpose, but that's true of, eg, 'free'-to-play mobile games as well.

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

#33

Post by chordalkeyboard »

grumple wrote: post #20
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.

No, we use physical money all the time.

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

#34

Post by stouset »

paulgb wrote: post #31
Me1000 wrote: post #26

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;…

This would be a reasonable stance if Bitcoin were just another activity, but it’s unique in its energy profile. What other technology is designed so that energy efficiency improvements are absorbed and nullified (through the difficulty adjustment mechanism)?

Precisely.

Without Bitcoin, we could be retiring coal plants with the additional solar and wind that have been coming online. Instead, every additional Watt-hour we generate is used to mine Bitcoin on top of existing demand.

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

#35

Post by Retric »

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.

A Brink's truck at maximum capacity can move 600 million dollars. That’s unusual, but filling up several ATM’s can quickly get into the low millions. Most cash transactions are low value by comparison, as the energy cost of cash in your wallet is infinitesimal. It’s the daily or weekly drop of merchants taking cash to their bank which is the main environmental cost of cash but again that’s often thousands of individual transactions. Further those banks tend to be close to the stores and use much of it to fill local ATM’s etc.

For large transactions like paying a mortgage it’s all electronic and very energy efficient.

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

#36

Post by chordalkeyboard »

stouset wrote: post #28
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.

> Watt-hour of hydro or solar that goes to mining Bitcoin could have been used to reduce demand for power generated from fossil fuels.

No, that power would have gone to reducing the price of power and people would have found new uses for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

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

#38

Post by mrits »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #33
grumple wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No, we use physical money all the time.

What do you use physical money for?

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

#39

Post by lai-yin »

stouset wrote: post #34
paulgb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be a reasonable stance if Bitcoin were just another activity, but it’s unique in its energy profile. What other technology is designed so that energy efficiency improvements are absorbed and nullified (through the difficulty adjustment mechanism)?

Precisely. Without Bitcoin, we could be retiring coal plants with the additional solar and wind that have been coming online. Instead, every additional Watt-hour we generate is used to mine Bitcoin on top of existing demand.

That's an absurd argument. And as long as we're using solar and wind, we'll need backup from coal, gas and nuclear for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If you think increasing battery capacity will solve that, read up on the supply chain of lithium.

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

#40

Post by mrits »

my123 wrote: post #27
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.

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

Are you sure about that? Do you not think the mining is extremely concentrated by a handful of big players and is going to become increasing more so as the hardware needed is becoming more difficult to obtain?
Post reply on HN