The Crypto-Chernobyl • Hacker News Board

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#11

Post by tal8d » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:06 AM UTC

paul_f wrote: post #6

justforyou wrote: post #5

It's disengenuous to make that argument without a comparison to the full manifold energy consumption required to support fiat cash... (including things like burning gasoline and jet fuel to move paper and metal for shredding/melting.)

I don't think we need a detailed study for most everyone to accept that fiat cash is several orders of magnitude less energy costly than bitcoin

You couldn't be more wrong, even the people complain about this made up problem will admit it when pressed. Follow the link and see for yourself.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#12

Post by louwrentius » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:08 AM UTC

tal8d wrote: post #7

The whole "Cryptographically securing your currency is wasteful, you should fold proteins!" talking point has popped up several times over the years, despite the fact that it is silly to complain about when considered in relation to the present solution. > Whataboutism arguments regarding traditional currencies and the financial sector are a completely absurd response. Yes, a real currency like the Euro and by proxy…

Can you actually point out the misinformation?

This article is not proposing to 'waste energy' on folding proteins.

This article points out that other systems may also consume a lot of energy, but they give our societies a ton of value in return.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#13

Post by krasin » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:09 AM UTC

I agree that wasting so much energy is not good. But it would be amusing, if we end up getting fusion energy sooner because someone makes a business case to mine bitcoins with the produced energy.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#14

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:11 AM UTC

krasin wrote: post #13

I agree that wasting so much energy is not good. But it would be amusing, if we end up getting fusion energy sooner because someone makes a business case to mine bitcoins with the produced energy.

[deleted]

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#15

Post by rfd4sgmk8u » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:12 AM UTC

Same old misinformed opinions 'ma energy', while feigning some kind of environmentally superiority. We have to get off Planet Earth! We need to reach Kardashev Type I before we start talking waste. The energy usage argument is a neoluddite position and will doom humanity to die on this rock stuck forever in some kind of mid 20th century malaise.

You could scream into the abyss, or you could enrich your future. Some people keep screaming, year after year, while others keep on building, earning, working and playing.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#16

Post by DNied » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:12 AM UTC

justforyou wrote: post #5

It's disengenuous to make that argument without a comparison to the full manifold energy consumption required to support fiat cash... (including things like burning gasoline and jet fuel to move paper and metal for shredding/melting.)

A comparison with cash would be completely arbitrary: bitcoin doesn't replace cash, so it only adds to the problem.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#17

Post by louwrentius » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:12 AM UTC

krasin wrote: post #13

I agree that wasting so much energy is not good. But it would be amusing, if we end up getting fusion energy sooner because someone makes a business case to mine bitcoins with the produced energy.

Yes let's create a Dyson Sphere to mine Bitcoin. Seems like a noble goal.

Hm...

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#18

Post by dustingetz » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:12 AM UTC

It's also a financial weapon which looks to be slowly but inevitably sucking the whole world into a pyramid scheme. You can only grow exponentially so long before you run against limits of physics and something fractures. Well, maybe when Tether gets shut down it will unwind under the pressure of electric bills and taxes.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#19

Post by nerdponx » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:13 AM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #14

krasin wrote: post #13

I agree that wasting so much energy is not good. But it would be amusing, if we end up getting fusion energy sooner because someone makes a business case to mine bitcoins with the produced energy.

[deleted]

Yes, if it subsidizes a total revolution in energy production that significantly improves the long-term sustainability of the human race.

Not gonna happen anyway, but fun to think about.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#20

Post by wsinks » Thu, Feb 11, 2021, 1:14 AM UTC

justforyou wrote: post #5

It's disengenuous to make that argument without a comparison to the full manifold energy consumption required to support fiat cash... (including things like burning gasoline and jet fuel to move paper and metal for shredding/melting.)

The counter argument to this that I've seen and has me thinking about Bitcoin's value again is this one:

Right now Bitcoin is an additive to the financial system, and actually promotes more usage of fiat. So if you were to compare the manifold energy consumption to Bitcoin, you need to somewhere also calculate those other effects.

I can't find a reference, but there's a good phrase that talked about how for every new innovation that comes out and is going to "completely replace X", the actual equilibrium always turns into a hybrid of the legacy systems and the new systems. Much like we've seen with Bitcoin.

So at least at this point, I find your argument disingenuous, because it doesn't take into effect the interplay of the systems.