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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#931

Post by jude- »

AdrianB1 wrote: post #907
jude- wrote: post #870

There's lots of misdirected anger these last few days towards Bitcoin. First, the only thing that's energy-intensive about Bitcoin is block production. Making transactions, relaying them, validating them and storing them have negligible energy cost. Second, nothing about the Bitcoin protocol requires block production to use fossil fuels. Just like with every other energy-intensive industry , the problem isn't the ind…

It is impossible to regulate and tax miners; they live in various countries and in some it is impossible to apply such regulations, if some countries will do it then minim will move to other places. When you have an industry, you get a product that you can use. Mining energy consumption is just about how hard to make the mining, not a real limitation like in industry. It is like "let's make car building 3 times more…

> It is impossible to regulate and tax miners; they live in various countries and in some it is impossible to apply such regulations, if some countries will do it then minim will move to other places.

Other countries can sanction them until they figure out how to apply such regulations. This isn't unique to PoW; it happens for other such dangerous pollutants as well (like CFC emissions).

> When you have an industry, you get a product that you can use. Mining energy consumption is just about how hard to make the mining, not a real limitation like in industry. It is like "let's make car building 3 times more energy consuming".

Energy usage and product/market fit are both irrelevant to this discussion. What is important is the pollution PoW creates. If we can get a global handle on that (along with basically every other energy-intense industry), then it hardly matters that the energy is used for PoW. The point is to not pollute.

> No, there is no misdirected anger, there are good reasons.

You may not think Bitcoin has a right to exist, but it's not up to you, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Love it or hate it, we're going to be living with it for likely a long, long time, so we might as well figure out a way to get a handle on the pollution it could cause.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#932

Post by lucb1e »

jude- wrote: post #929
lucb1e wrote: post #918

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's get some laws passed to require miners in your area to use only renewable energy Even if every major country on earth requires PoW systems to use renewable electricity (which won't happen any time soon in the first place) and can't run on the regular mixed grid, then after switching to countries without such laws (until there are none left), the renewable energy will be bought up at the source and the coal an…

> Even if every major country on earth requires PoW systems to use renewable electricity (which won't happen any time soon in the first place) and can't run on the regular mixed grid, then after switching to countries without such laws (until there are none left), the renewable energy will be bought up at the source and the coal and gas plants will continue to supply everyone else. Nothing changes. Never say never. H…

> But it's something that could, in theory, be regulated if we find the will to do so.

Oh definitely we can, I just don't expect it to be realistic. Similar to being a tax haven, it's profitable for some countries to not make something illegal such that the people will go there to do it and pay only a small tax (or, in this case, be allowed to do it at all). Other countries can put pressure etc., but it would take time we don't have. Hence my alternative idea of making it illegal to use and forcing people to use alternatives, rather than to require it to use a precious resource (renewable energy).

Then again, making proof of work illegal to use seems like it would be too easy for a non-trivial part of the population to start screaming that the tinfoil hats were right.

> Why not impose a global carbon tax on all goods and services known to produce pollution?

Full agree. I genuinely don't know why we're not already doing that. Well, I mean, corruption, fear of change.. lots of things, but nothing fundamental. Not as if not literally everyone realizes that we will need to start with this. And I understand that some industries are so dependent on it that your economy collapses if you, from one day to the next, impose a tax equal to the real environmental damage done. People wouldn't get around, steel would cost more than gold, we can't build wind turbines anymore because they're made out of unobtainium (aka steel), etc. But we all know we need to get there anyway, and with the capitalistic system we have, well, the super fucking easiest way is to just start with a low carbon tax that increases to "real environmental damage" in . Probably an exponential curve to give companies some time to build out and use alternatives, but we do need to get there, everyone knows it (yes, also the politicians, and the delusional ones aren't in enough power to use that as an excuse), but we're not doing it.

> My original point was to channel focus on what matters

I suppose I agree with that. I am just frustrated with people invested in Bitcoin, people that are otherwise rational, waylaying logical arguments because they subconsciously don't want it to be true. It's clear as day, why can't we just stop this madness...

In general you're right of course, universal carbon tax would seem like it solves most things in one go instead of trying to fight a lot of individual battles for bitcoin, coal plants, and other individual things that produce CO2 or take renewable energy away unnecessarily.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#933

Post by Nursie »

madacol wrote: post #828
sharpneli wrote: post #440

At that rate and assuming 4tx per second a single Bitcoin transaction consumes 165kWh. A Tesla battery is bit over 50kWh. So let's round that to 3 full charges of Tesla battery. That's 350km/220 miles of range per charge. In total 1050km or 660 miles of driving. So basically if you want to transfer money and the recipient is closer than 660 miles from you it's more efficient to just get a bunch of bills, drive there…

I think the real value in Bitcoin is its immutability. I don't think there's any piece of information in the world as immutable as the first bitcoin block mined by satoshi. This property is what powers amazing projects like OpenTimeStamps ( https://opentimestamps.org/ ), this will become an essential tool for notaries all around the world, seriously!, and this has nothing to do with number of transactions, this scale…

If it was centralised, that's fine. Not everyone shares this decentralisaton fetish.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#934

Post by lucb1e »

js8 wrote: post #224
Havoc wrote: post #4

Perhaps not all of it is entirely "wasted" though. I've largely been able to avoid heating this winter as a result of crypto mining. A computer pumping ~300W into the air 24/7 is remarkably effective for a small apartment

> Perhaps not all of it is entirely "wasted" though. I've largely been able to avoid heating this winter as a result of crypto mining. I am telling myself the same thing when I play videogames. :-)

That serves a purpose, though. Relaxing after work is perfectly legitimate. Having an investment scheme where you issue numbered bank notes and agree to never use a bank note with a number higher than 21 million, then track on some forum who now owns which bank note, would work the same way as Bitcoin. So long as people keep buying, the price keeps increasing, as it does with Bitcoin. Except that Bitcoin also agrees to burn some Terrawatts for no added benefit.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#935

Post by miracle2k »

arcticbull wrote: post #913
janoside wrote: post #612

Nic Carter's rebuttal to a Bloomberg comparison between Bitcoin/Visa, including assessments of total and per/transaction energy usage: "First of all, Bitcoin and Visa are fundamentally different systems. Bitcoin is a complete, self-contained monetary settlement system; Visa transactions are non-final credit transactions that rely on external underlying settlement rails. Visa relies on ACH, Fedwire, SWIFT, the global…

Nic Carter's point is intentionally obtuse and belies his conflicted interests. The reality is that if you scaled up the bitcoin system linearly so it provided as much transaction capacity as Visa (let alone the entire world economy) [edit or rather worded differently if each Visa transaction consumed as much power as a Bitcoin transaction], it would require a number of times more power than the entire world produces…

> The reality is that if you scaled up the bitcoin system linearly so it provided as much transaction capacity as Visa (let alone the entire world economy), it would require a number of times more power than the entire world produces, and produce as much e-waste as the entire world put together.

It's fair to judge Bitcoin's energy use by its tps, but the above is not true. Energy use and tps are, as you then acknowledge, not related. It is possible to increase the number of tps by many multiples. The trade-off is centralization due to hardware requirements.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#936

Post by arcticbull »

miracle2k wrote: post #935
arcticbull wrote: post #913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nic Carter's point is intentionally obtuse and belies his conflicted interests. The reality is that if you scaled up the bitcoin system linearly so it provided as much transaction capacity as Visa (let alone the entire world economy) [edit or rather worded differently if each Visa transaction consumed as much power as a Bitcoin transaction], it would require a number of times more power than the entire world produces…

> The reality is that if you scaled up the bitcoin system linearly so it provided as much transaction capacity as Visa (let alone the entire world economy), it would require a number of times more power than the entire world produces, and produce as much e-waste as the entire world put together. It's fair to judge Bitcoin's energy use by its tps, but the above is not true. Energy use and tps are, as you then acknowle…

Once they increase it, which they won’t for philosophical reasons, I’ll update my assessment. Until then it’s strictly fair and accurate.

It’s representative of the world in which we live today not some hypothetical world that could exist in the future - that the team has promised and failed to deliver for a decade. I can make up numbers for visa that match too.

After all climate change doesn’t care about hypotheticals.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#937

Post by null0pointer »

arcticbull wrote: post #913
janoside wrote: post #612

Nic Carter's rebuttal to a Bloomberg comparison between Bitcoin/Visa, including assessments of total and per/transaction energy usage: "First of all, Bitcoin and Visa are fundamentally different systems. Bitcoin is a complete, self-contained monetary settlement system; Visa transactions are non-final credit transactions that rely on external underlying settlement rails. Visa relies on ACH, Fedwire, SWIFT, the global…

Nic Carter's point is intentionally obtuse and belies his conflicted interests. The reality is that if you scaled up the bitcoin system linearly so it provided as much transaction capacity as Visa (let alone the entire world economy) [edit or rather worded differently if each Visa transaction consumed as much power as a Bitcoin transaction], it would require a number of times more power than the entire world produces…

How can you say "if you scaled up the bitcoin system" and "this is not how bitcoin scales" in the same argument?

Bitcoin could handle arbitrary scaling with little power-usage increase had it not been intentionally hamstrung by (for lack of a better term) "small-blockers". This is because the primary power usage of bitcoin (mining) does not scale linearly with transactions/block. The transactions to include are usually considered once by the miners who then make iterated attempts at solving by modifying the block nonce, not the included transactions.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#938

Post by arcticbull »

null0pointer wrote: post #937
arcticbull wrote: post #913

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nic Carter's point is intentionally obtuse and belies his conflicted interests. The reality is that if you scaled up the bitcoin system linearly so it provided as much transaction capacity as Visa (let alone the entire world economy) [edit or rather worded differently if each Visa transaction consumed as much power as a Bitcoin transaction], it would require a number of times more power than the entire world produces…

How can you say "if you scaled up the bitcoin system" and "this is not how bitcoin scales" in the same argument? Bitcoin could handle arbitrary scaling with little power-usage increase had it not been intentionally hamstrung by (for lack of a better term) "small-blockers". This is because the primary power usage of bitcoin (mining) does not scale linearly with transactions/block. The transactions to include are usual…

When that changes I’ll update my math. Until then it doesn’t matter. Its less efficient on a per transaction basis by falsification. It is fundamentally thermodynamically impossible for it to be more efficient today on a per transaction basis. It’s been 14 years. Time to look in the mirror and stop making excuses for its devastating waste.

The case I am making is that it is not possible for Visa to use as much power as Bitcoin on a per transaction basis based on today's energy usage, factoring in all exernalities - because the world would be out of power.

I am simply countering Nic's trivially incorrect position.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#939

Post by ClumsyPilot »

arcticbull wrote: post #913
janoside wrote: post #612

Nic Carter's rebuttal to a Bloomberg comparison between Bitcoin/Visa, including assessments of total and per/transaction energy usage: "First of all, Bitcoin and Visa are fundamentally different systems. Bitcoin is a complete, self-contained monetary settlement system; Visa transactions are non-final credit transactions that rely on external underlying settlement rails. Visa relies on ACH, Fedwire, SWIFT, the global…

Nic Carter's point is intentionally obtuse and belies his conflicted interests. The reality is that if you scaled up the bitcoin system linearly so it provided as much transaction capacity as Visa (let alone the entire world economy) [edit or rather worded differently if each Visa transaction consumed as much power as a Bitcoin transaction], it would require a number of times more power than the entire world produces…

"if you scaled up the bitcoin system linearly so it provided as much transaction capacity as Visa ... it would require a number of times more power than the entire world produces"

This is a complete fantasy - power consumption is driven by the desire to secure the network, it is not related to transaction volume.

There is an argument that power consumption would have to be significant because attacking the network has to be cost- prohibitive, and there are people working on POS and similar approaches.

Etherium is actually attempting to scale, their talks are very interesting .

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#940

Post by lucb1e »

frongpik wrote: post #875

Cool. Now show us the Adtech Electricity Consumption Index and see if bitcoin would add up to even 1% of ads.

One of these can be trivially understood to be unnecessary, given the alternative proof-of-stake system, the alternative cash system, the alternative banking system...
Post reply on HN