271–280 of 436 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smaller than the energy required to run Ireland, unlike bitcoin. An algorithm designed to be wasteful in energy wasting energy is not something we should be shocked at.
The US military certainly consumes more energy than Ireland.
And yes, the U.S. military should massively downscale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheap is not necessarily renewable, but is often just a cheaper country which in turn tend to be more lenient. Also, it is wrong to assume that consuming 1GW near a hydroplant is fine. That 1GW would have been sold to someone else, and unless the net has an abundance of renewable energy, a non-renewable plant is going to have to cover for that.
Energy is not fully fungible. Local cheap energy can't be transported for use elsewhere, or else it would already have been.
The same market effects that apply to factories, research facilities, server farms, etc... also apply to cryptocurrency mining. We can't have our cake and eat it too -- if energy isn't fungible, then not every mining rig is going to be set up using the most efficient power source in the world. Not every miner is going to have the ability to just "choose" to use cheap renewable power, and if mining is still profitable where they are using the power sources available to them, then they're still going to do it.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They questioned the methodology specifically. So it's not just an assertion.
...of a published study. The only reason people are defending GP now is because the subject is BTC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much damage is the current financial system responsible for?
Whataboutism has no place in any intelligent discourse.
(I’m extremely skeptical about PoW crypto of all types, BTC included; this is just about the reasonableness of this specific argument).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh? It would reduce a statistically significant amount of wasted energy. About as much as Ireland uses every year. Seems like a good goal to pursue, unless you’re a nihilist I guess
If the energy was previously excess energy being thrown out, is using it for bitcoin actually increasing the energy footprint? Not saying all bitcoin mining is this way, but a portion of it is.
> 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…
Hyper competitive market forces in the west have created the wrong incentives for everyone, especially institutions. When there is a demand to weaponize or politicize science then we naturally get stuff like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Smaller than the energy required to run Ireland, unlike bitcoin. An algorithm designed to be wasteful in energy wasting energy is not something we should be shocked at.
You have to include the energy used to power the US military, among other things too. The value of the Dollar is inextricably tied to the threat of force. Bitcoin, on the other hand, offers trust through proof of work, not violence.
> 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…
You clearly haven't actually looked at how the damages are modelled have you? You just in your head inveneted a naive way in which to estimate damages and then argued that that doesn't work. There is a large and robust literature to assess these type of damages (search for Social Cost of Carbon). The methodological challenges are discussed really well in the paper actually. Much of the damages calculated here aren't…
Is this all an altruistic exercise in saving the planet?
If so, it sounds very nice. We are lucky to have the concern of such well funded saviors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying we shouldn't understand the consequences of what we do? It's useful to know that BTC has major externalities because it allows us to make a rational choice. We could make different choices about all the things you listed, too. Or not! But you seem to be actually arguing for willful blindness, here.
aRE yOu SayInG tHat No Im actually not. You said that. Pointing out that you can cherry pick and micro-analyze anything.
Your playground rhetoric isn't helpful.