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

The Crypto-Chernobyl

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 156 posts

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#21

Post by PragmaticPulp »

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.)

> (including things like burning gasoline and jet fuel to move paper and metal for shredding/melting.)

In 2021, most transactions aren't made with paper cash and metal coins. It doesn't matter, though, because Bitcoin certainly isn't replacing traditional systems. The waste of Bitcoin is additive on top of any existing energy usage.

Recent estimates compare the energy cost of a single Bitcoin transaction to around 700,000 credit card transactions, all things considered. ( https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ )

Notably, traditional transactions only get more efficient as our datacenters become faster and more energy efficient.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin continues to consume ever-increasing amounts of energy while the number of supported transactions stays the same.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#22

Post by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 »

> incentives an ever increasing amount of waste that can only increase with time.

That is NOT true:

The Bitcoin block reward is cut in half every four years - an exponential decay! In the long-term it will be zero, miners will only earn transaction fees.

This means that there will be a supply vs demand market, where supply is the willingness of people to pay transaction fees, and demand is miners who consume them.

And there is only a finite willingness to pay fees! So the energy usage has a finite upper boundary through the limited supply of fees.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#23

Post by nexthash »

Yes, yes, yes. In another discussion, I brought up that according to current energy consumption rates for average mining equipment, it took 2.4 million terrawatts to mine the $1.5 billion in Bitcoin Tesla bought recently. Does putting this much money in Bitcoin have a positive economic impact? Does it have any tangible value other than as a stopover for hedge fund and organized crime money?

I think not, despite all the chaff crypto-fanatics throw at you when you question their ideology. It would've been far better and make more sense if the $238 billion invested in Bitcoin today in the forms of CPU power, brains, and cash was put into actual economic activity rather than idling and burning resources in an attempt to fulfill the greater-fools theory.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#24

Post by duskwuff »

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #15

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 p…

So what's your response? That spending an ever-increasing amount of energy and generating a significant quantity of non-reusable electronics waste on a Red Queen's race is Good, Actually? And if so: why?

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#25

Post by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 »

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #22

> incentives an ever increasing amount of waste that can only increase with time. That is NOT true: The Bitcoin block reward is cut in half every four years - an exponential decay! In the long-term it will be zero , miners will only earn transaction fees. This means that there will be a supply vs demand market, where supply is the willingness of people to pay transaction fees, and demand is miners who consume them. A…

Why are you downvoting this?

It's right in the source code, this is not just a personal opinion!

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#26

Post by louwrentius »

nexthash wrote: post #23

Yes, yes, yes. In another discussion, I brought up that according to current energy consumption rates for average mining equipment, it took 2.4 million terrawatts to mine the $1.5 billion in Bitcoin Tesla bought recently. Does putting this much money in Bitcoin have a positive economic impact? Does it have any tangible value other than as a stopover for hedge fund and organized crime money? I think not, despite all t…

I feel this. Just imagine all that effort and all those resources put in more noble causes like sustainable energy solutions, or anything similar that comes to mind.

But it seems all about lambo money.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#27

Post by tal8d »

louwrentius wrote: post #12
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.

> Can you actually point out the misinformation?

Yes. I submit to you this article. Consider the framing of bitcoin's utility and the immovability of the status quo.

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

No, that accompanies the handwringing about POW - you can substitute an number of other silly suggestions: SETI, fusion reactor modeling, etc.

> 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.

Have you maybe considered the possibility that, I dunno, bitcoin replaces the fiat currency - as intended from the outset of the entire endeavor?

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#28

Post by robjan »

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #22

> incentives an ever increasing amount of waste that can only increase with time. That is NOT true: The Bitcoin block reward is cut in half every four years - an exponential decay! In the long-term it will be zero , miners will only earn transaction fees. This means that there will be a supply vs demand market, where supply is the willingness of people to pay transaction fees, and demand is miners who consume them. A…

That's a big problem then. That means once the block mining reward turns to zero most miners will have to cease their operation to keep themselves in the black. If that happens, the cost of a 50% attack significantly decreases.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#29

Post by Apocryphon »

tal8d wrote: post #27
louwrentius wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Can you actually point out the misinformation? Yes. I submit to you this article. Consider the framing of bitcoin's utility and the immovability of the status quo. > This article is not proposing to 'waste energy' on folding proteins. No, that accompanies the handwringing about POW - you can substitute an number of other silly suggestions: SETI, fusion reactor modeling, etc. > This article points out that other sys…

BOINC has many projects, several of which are geared towards solving open questions in mathematics

https://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#30

Post by atweiden »

> And what is there to show for all this waste?

The safest safe haven asset: a global currency of fixed supply controlled by computer algorithms.

Essentially the author posits Earth’s ecosystems don't have room for another Argentina. But they arguably don't even have room for half of the current human population. Particularly a human population that exploits nature to the tune of millions of acres of clearcut forests and billions of animals per year — the latter almost entirely for their value to our taste buds alone.

Perhaps it’s time one of these systems came to an end.

Post reply on HN