Live data from Hacker News

The Crypto-Chernobyl

stephendiehl.com

41–50 of 156 posts

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#41
I find this completely tone deaf, factually unconvincing, ignorant of the true required comparisons to the sum total power consumption of the whole transactional, fossil fuel and military industrial complex systems and infrastructure required to support the existence and usage of first world fiat currency.

“Bitcoin uses a lot of energy” utterly doesn’t mean anything on its own like this.

It’s infuriating to see such an intellectually dishonest and disgraceful, disingenuous line of argument taken with even the smallest modicum of seriousness.

This just needs to be ignored out of existence.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#42
post #3

The energy usage is for mining new bitcoin and collecting fees, not "7 transactions per second". Newly mined bitcoin will be used for infinite future transactions. If you want more settlement with same store-of-value properties, use Bitcoin Cash.

> The energy usage is for mining new bitcoin and collecting fees, not "7 transactions per second". I think you've misunderstood. The mining fees you cited are for those 7 transactions per second. Miners collect fees for processing those transactions. Focusing on the dollar amount of those Bitcoin or how many times a Bitcoin can be re-used is irrelevant. If anything, it's bizarrely wasteful that Bitcoin requires the e…

Or, to put it more strongly, if no-one mined bitcoin tomorrow, you literally can't transact anymore. Bitcoin PoW /needs/ the energy consumption to function at all.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#43

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…

How much energy did it consume to mint all the physical metal coins we have in circulation? How much does it consume to mint fresh ones when the old ones are damaged? Bitcoins don't wear off, the ones we've been mining now will be in use for possibly centuries to come once the block reward is zero and only transaction fees will fund the miners. By then, mining will decrease a lot because people won't be willing to pa…

> Bitcoins don't wear off

Sure, they just get trapped in a wallet that's lost in a hard-drive failure.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#44
Are there any evaluations of cryptocurrency energy consumption as total usage rather than peak usage, A sort of area-under-the-curve comparison?

If Bitcoin is a flash in the pan phenomenon and it one-day collapses into nothing then comparisons against countries like Argentina are inaccurate (Argentina is likely to continue existing).

To extrapolate into the future you would have to have some assumptions. Some would be fixed, such as Miners would only mine if they could do so profitably, Mining scales with electricity consumption. Some would be tunable such as cost of electricity, value of Bitcoin

The long term energy consumption seems intrinsically tied to the long term value. This seems at odds with the surprising correlation between those who dismiss the utility of crypto currency and those who express concerns about the energy consumption

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#45

Still one of the best descriptions of bitcoin I have seen. > imagine if keeping your car idling 24/7 produced solved Sudokus you could trade for heroin https://twitter.com/Theophite/status/1030225104234373121

Imagine if you could just print money to pay your bills and hide the fact that you're bankrupt.

- That's what governments do with fiat money.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#46
post #20

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…

Let's all agree that yes, it's complicated and that Bitcoin interacts with fiat currency, and that SOME of bitcoin's energy waste could be attributed to external factors.

That still leaves us with bitcoin being an environmental disaster and a net loss for humanity, apart from the few people who are benefitting from the pyramid scheme right now; Thus, changing none of the arguments against it.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#47
Bitcoin is only a problem if you believe the future of energy creation is fossil fuels. This is simply not the case. Solar and wind are the cheapest sources of energy for new power plants compared to nuclear, gas peaker (natural gas), and coal.

https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

2019 Prices

Coal - $109/MWh

Solar - $68/MWh

On shore wind - $53/MWh

Basic economic theory dictates that energy consuming businesses would seek out the lowest cost sources of energy to maximize profits.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#49

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…

On the other hand, what drives Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is the need for certain properties that conventional currencies don't have - this includes properties some might find undesirable as they mainly benefit crime.

The definition of "crime" itself is murky - are the citizens of sanctioned countries criminals because they're just trying to survive by participating in the global economy despite a stupid feud between governments they have no power to change?

Same thing for drugs - the much of the violence associated with them is caused by their illegality. You decriminalize them and a huge chunk of that violence goes away, and so does the need for cryptocurrencies if people can now legally buy it and can use conventional currencies without fear of repercussions. Violence going away has also a viral effect, as drugs are typically what supports other violent/criminal enterprises (such as weapons smuggling) - if drug operations no longer operate in the shadows, it removes their need for other bad things such as weapons.

If we assume cryptocurrencies are wasteful, we need to obviate the need for them. The cat is out of the bag when it comes to controlling the technology (it's just cryptography at the end of the day, that could theoretically be done on paper even if all computing devices are outlawed), so the best we can do is merely remove any need for it. Put the future of our planet ahead of some government's interests.

The energy cost of cryptocurrencies just represents the effort it takes to provide a currency immune to government interference. If there was an easier way (like if the government didn't interfere with fiat currencies) nobody would use crypto.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#50
post #32

My understanding is that the vast majority of crypto mining happens at dedicated farms in energy cost optimal locations such as Iceland where you can have clean geothermal energy. I haven't seen an analysis that looks at actual mining facilities carbon costs vs. a general average figure of CO/2 emissions per energy unit which absolutely would not apply in this case.

That's the narrative being pushed to distract from the massive scale of Bitcoin's energy usage, but it's largely a myth.

Yes, some Bitcoin mines use cheap renewable energy. However, renewable energy isn't free. If it wasn't going to mining, it would be transferred through the power grid to other locations that rely on non-renewable energy sources.

> the vast majority of crypto mining happens at dedicated farms in energy cost optimal locations such as Iceland where you can have clean geothermal energy

To put it in perspective, the energy usage of:

Bitcoin network: 121.36 TWh per year All of Iceland: 18.68 TWh per year.

Bitcoin uses 6.5X more energy than the entire country of Iceland combined.

Post reply on HN