Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US • Hacker News Board

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#191

Post by martin-adams » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #126

While this is sad, this is a self correcting problem. Miners and other people using bitcoins are going to get tired at some point of the loss from buying all this energy to keep their bitcoin assets going. The most scary part of cryptocoins is the deflationary cycle that makes these crypto asset potentially displace productive investment on an economy wide scale. This is not self correcting. This is Moloch, it's a pr…

> Miners and other people using bitcoins are going to get tired at some point of the loss from buying all this energy to keep their bitcoin assets going

Someone might have a better insight to me. My concern is that the demand for energy will push up the price for everyone and it's actually those on lower incomes who will suffer the most. While the economics might eventually get there to solve the problem, could it do a lot of damage in the process?

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#192

Post by ROARosen » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

rmorey wrote: post #130

kryogen1c wrote: post #100

> responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages red flag this article is steeped in pseudoscience. you could spend a lifetime trying to model and predict global weather patterns _with no outside intervention_. the idea that you could even make an attempt at attaching a number to this phenomena is laughable. what are the error bars here, 10,000%? lets pretend, for example, you tried to estimate the impact of tsu…

This is not just some article, it's a peer-reviewed study from the University of Arizona. Surely it has fault, but honestly I don't think a "cursory glance at wikipedia" provides a compelling counterargument

> This is not just some article, it's a peer-reviewed study from the University of Arizona

Without going into the paper itself, why do you believe being peer-reviewed means that we cannot - and should not - look at it critically with our own brains and minds, analyze the evidence, and reach our own conclusions?

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#193

Post by boffinism » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

eigenvalue wrote: post #6

This is about the furthest thing from “science”. Just sensationalist propaganda. It’s so far from being even remotely plausible. Maybe 1 BTC is responsible for $0.49 of “damage” if you could ever actually quantify it. Most of this electricity comes from the cheapest source of power, which is hydro.

"The survey findings estimate that on average 39 per cent of proof-of-work mining is powered by renewable energy" according to https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/faculty-research/centres/alternati...

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#194

Post by ngneer » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 1:59 PM UTC

All money has cost. How does Bitcoin cost compare to the cost of the mint and keeping dollars in circulation?

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#195

Post by Deukhoofd » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

kryogen1c wrote: post #100

> responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages red flag this article is steeped in pseudoscience. you could spend a lifetime trying to model and predict global weather patterns _with no outside intervention_. the idea that you could even make an attempt at attaching a number to this phenomena is laughable. what are the error bars here, 10,000%? lets pretend, for example, you tried to estimate the impact of tsu…

They take the average emission per kWh generated in the country, combine that with existing research of the social cost of carbon done by the EPA (which includes damages done through climate change), as well as the change in mortality rate caused by these emissions. Then they combine this by the electricity requirements of bitcoin mining, and they have their results. (in very global terms, there's a lot more work done in the results).

I definitely wouldn't call it pseudo-science, as their arguments seem valid, and their methods seem to follow through at a cursory glance.

They do note some weaknesses in their research, such as not having access to the exact sources of electricity miners use, however, which might change the results.

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#196

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

eigenvalue wrote: post #6

This is about the furthest thing from “science”. Just sensationalist propaganda. It’s so far from being even remotely plausible. Maybe 1 BTC is responsible for $0.49 of “damage” if you could ever actually quantify it. Most of this electricity comes from the cheapest source of power, which is hydro.

[deleted]

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#197

Post by BTCOG » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

bingbong70 wrote: post #93

If $1 in BTC is responsible for ~$0.50 (I don't buy this claim)...imagine how much damage central banks cause by debasing currencies to fight endless wars, funding corruption through a class of useless cantillonaires, exacerbating inequality, etc.... Central bank corruption probably even indirectly funded the stupidity that allows articles like these to be branded as "science"...to the casual observer this might seem…

And look at us being downvoted into oblivion. CensoredNews. I fail to see how the comment sections here are at all real when it's blatantly apparent it's constantly manipulated and censored. You can't leave honest commentary on HackerNews unless it agrees with the HackerNews Zeitgeist.

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#198

Post by neilwilson » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #123

asutekku wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. Bitcoin’s value increases because it’s a speculative asset and there’s almost zero reasons for it to go down since it’s not really tied to anything tangible.

Simply take a moment to see how that argument works with other kinds of assets and you will see how it doesn't make any sense. Gold is a speculative asset that also has some limited tangible uses too. So does that mean gold has less reasons to decrease in price than an asset which only has tangible uses and no speculation?

Try it for certain vintages of fine wine. The same as Bitcoin. Over time the quantity available for sale decreases due to loss. People lose their keys and the coins get lost. People drink the wine. Both naturally reduces supply driving up the price of the remainder.

BTC is a one way bet, right up to the point where people decide it isn't worth holding any more. Just like certain vintages of wine.

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#199

Post by capableweb » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:00 PM UTC

Jenk wrote: post #163

hellohiyesokay wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patently false. I do a lot of contracting work for miners, they specifically tune their operations to the power cost of an area and in variable rate loads will switch off miners during peak costs. $/kWh is a big concern for actual mining operations, maybe not for people with one or two rigs in their basement.

> I do a lot of contracting work for miners Selection bias. I don't doubt that the miners who are investing god knows how much is necessary to _require a contractor_ will have scaled enough to need to concern themselves with cost of electricity, but the _majority_ of miners are not going to be those people, surely?

Majority of miners are companies trying to make a profit. Every variable is a consideration, like location, energy source, cost and so on.

The small mining operations run by the common person has almost no impact in the scale of the network.

Re: Every $1 of BTC value responsible for $0.49 in health and climate damages in US

#200

Post by arghwhat » Thu, Mar 04, 2021, 2:01 PM UTC

hellohiyesokay wrote: post #147

Jenk wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Miners don't care/get a choice. They plug their machines into the nearest wall socket.

Patently false. I do a lot of contracting work for miners, they specifically tune their operations to the power cost of an area and in variable rate loads will switch off miners during peak costs. $/kWh is a big concern for actual mining operations, maybe not for people with one or two rigs in their basement.

For some reason I imagine that you are not managing e.g. Chinese mining operations.

Everyone will look for cheapest power, but that on its own does not make it renewable.

Plus, regardless of your source, as long as you haven't built your own plant, the grid has to cover for the loss. If there isn't an abundance of renewable energy on the grid, then the operation wasn't neutral at all.