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

Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

ofnumbers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 242 posts

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#31

Post by ForHackernews »

djbebs wrote: post #25
ForHackernews wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No other systems I know of are deliberately designed to continuously become less efficient. That's why Bitcoin/PoW is in a different category to me: It's a Red Queen's Race where all the miners are incentivized to keep wasting more and more energy (for no greater benefit) or else risk that somebody else can execute a 51% attack. Imagine if your email host needed to keep burning more and more energy, not to send any m…

Except they are not incentivised to expend more and more energy. The amount of energy expended is a direct correlation to how important bitcoin is. You wouldn't criticize a government for spending millions keeping ita gold reserves safe, even though it can store them just as easily in a warehouse as it can in fort knox

This is a completely bogus analogy. Even if I accepted that bitcoin was analogous to gold (hint: it's not), the government secures Ft. Knox to whatever level of security it feels appropriate, and then it's done/maintained at that level.

It's not like Russia adds one more guard to their gold vault, the US has to keep pace or else if Russia has 51% more guards outside their vault, then by magic they can suddenly steal/double-spend gold.

Do bitcoin folks really not understand this, or are they all just pretending to be blind because they hope it will make them rich?

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#32

Post by sokoloff »

ycombinatorrio wrote: post #27
cableshaft wrote: post #17

So since bitcoin is up right now, we're just going to see nonstop attacks on the fact that it's not climate friendly with its energy usage? Feels like this is the sixth article I've seen on Hacker News in the last month. From a quick skim this article seems like it might have some good data, but it also has a bunch of loaded language in it that turns me off from wanting to read the article. "Bitcoin and other PoW coi…

I saw the same too especially on HN. I suspect a non-negligible amount of competitors paying farm-content providers trying to make it a pb.

> paying farm-content providers trying to make it a pb.

What is “pb” in this context?

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#33

Post by mightybyte »

ForHackernews wrote: post #24
zyphr wrote: post #19

The locked up energy used for mining was never available to populated area's in the first place, it is exces energy. It's a bit like if you compare taking a shower in the middle of the desert with standing under a water fall and telling someone not to waste water while standing there because you consume as much water as 10000 people.

Says who? Bitcoin advocates always claim this, but never provide any compelling sources to back up this assertion. Can you not smelt aluminium in remote areas? Can you not perform hydrolysis to generate hydrogen? There are plenty of other good uses for electricity besides bitcoin or powering a city directly.

If you smelt aluminium in a remote area you then have to move it to an area where it can be useful. Moving it consumes a lot of energy. If you mine a bitcoin near a power plant with excess capacity, anyone anywhere in the world with an internet connection can leverage that work for value transmission. This literally allows a computer in China to replace an armored car in Denver, Colorado.

> There are plenty of other good uses for electricity besides bitcoin or powering a city directly.

The argument "uses lots of energy = bad" is a fallacy. You have to take into account what the alternatives are. You know what uses a lot of energy? Public transit systems. But nobody is arguing that public transit systems are bad because the alternatives are a lot worse.

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#34

Post by cecja »

[deleted] wrote: post #29
ForHackernews wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No other systems I know of are deliberately designed to continuously become less efficient. That's why Bitcoin/PoW is in a different category to me: It's a Red Queen's Race where all the miners are incentivized to keep wasting more and more energy (for no greater benefit) or else risk that somebody else can execute a 51% attack. Imagine if your email host needed to keep burning more and more energy, not to send any m…

[deleted]

You Sir are retarded :)

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#35

Post by Rallerbabs »

ForHackernews wrote: post #22
cableshaft wrote: post #17

So since bitcoin is up right now, we're just going to see nonstop attacks on the fact that it's not climate friendly with its energy usage? Feels like this is the sixth article I've seen on Hacker News in the last month. From a quick skim this article seems like it might have some good data, but it also has a bunch of loaded language in it that turns me off from wanting to read the article. "Bitcoin and other PoW coi…

None of the neutral language moves the needle. People have been pointing out for years that using more energy than all of Denmark to handle fewer transactions than a mid-sized Walmart is not a recipe for success. There are too many bagholders, excuse me, "investors" who are financially motivated to keep pushing this stuff.

Bitcoin is at all time high, meaning just about everybody who ever bought bitcoin is currently in profit.

There are very few bagholders.

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#36

Post by iagovar »

cableshaft wrote: post #17

So since bitcoin is up right now, we're just going to see nonstop attacks on the fact that it's not climate friendly with its energy usage? Feels like this is the sixth article I've seen on Hacker News in the last month. From a quick skim this article seems like it might have some good data, but it also has a bunch of loaded language in it that turns me off from wanting to read the article. "Bitcoin and other PoW coi…

Neutral language doesn't work, we can see it in its price.

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#37

Post by ForHackernews »

mightybyte wrote: post #33
ForHackernews wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Says who? Bitcoin advocates always claim this, but never provide any compelling sources to back up this assertion. Can you not smelt aluminium in remote areas? Can you not perform hydrolysis to generate hydrogen? There are plenty of other good uses for electricity besides bitcoin or powering a city directly.

If you smelt aluminium in a remote area you then have to move it to an area where it can be useful. Moving it consumes a lot of energy. If you mine a bitcoin near a power plant with excess capacity, anyone anywhere in the world with an internet connection can leverage that work for value transmission. This literally allows a computer in China to replace an armored car in Denver, Colorado. > There are plenty of other…

But if you smelt aluminium, you have valuable aluminium.

It's disingenuous to pretend (without any sourcing) that bitcoin is only mined using electricity that would otherwise have been wasted.

If this were really true, then bitcoin miners should all be getting paid to act as load banks[0] for their local electrical grid and soak up that excess power. Since they are instead paying for electricity, they are using valuable electricity, not spare/waste power.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_bank

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#38

Post by sildur »

cableshaft wrote: post #17

So since bitcoin is up right now, we're just going to see nonstop attacks on the fact that it's not climate friendly with its energy usage? Feels like this is the sixth article I've seen on Hacker News in the last month. From a quick skim this article seems like it might have some good data, but it also has a bunch of loaded language in it that turns me off from wanting to read the article. "Bitcoin and other PoW coi…

Just all the always-on devices in the US alone consume 1.5 times the electricity of the entire bitcoin network. And at least the bitcoin network is doing something useful.

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#39

Post by fvdessen »

ForHackernews wrote: post #31
djbebs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except they are not incentivised to expend more and more energy. The amount of energy expended is a direct correlation to how important bitcoin is. You wouldn't criticize a government for spending millions keeping ita gold reserves safe, even though it can store them just as easily in a warehouse as it can in fort knox

This is a completely bogus analogy. Even if I accepted that bitcoin was analogous to gold (hint: it's not), the government secures Ft. Knox to whatever level of security it feels appropriate, and then it's done/maintained at that level. It's not like Russia adds one more guard to their gold vault, the US has to keep pace or else if Russia has 51% more guards outside their vault, then by magic they can suddenly steal/…

A country cannot hold a significant amount of cash/gold/value without spending the appropriate amount on military defence to deter other countries from seizing the value. The armed guards at Ft. Knox is a small amount of the total expense, the aircraft carriers also participate at least in part.

Re: Bitcoin and other PoW coins are an ESG nightmare

#40

Post by MrMan »

cableshaft wrote: post #17

So since bitcoin is up right now, we're just going to see nonstop attacks on the fact that it's not climate friendly with its energy usage? Feels like this is the sixth article I've seen on Hacker News in the last month. From a quick skim this article seems like it might have some good data, but it also has a bunch of loaded language in it that turns me off from wanting to read the article. "Bitcoin and other PoW coi…

But I have to trudge though your non-subtantive rant as the top comment. How about addressing the issue discussed in the posted article instead of opting out because you don’t like the language the author uses in an attempt (perhaps unskillful) at being persuasive?
Post reply on HN