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

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

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 436 posts

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

#361

Post by throwaway20875 »

jf22 wrote: post #359
effie wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper has no perspective on electric energy consumption of other activities, there are many more with similar or bigger consumption (ad industry, MIC, etc.) and still advocates regulating specifically cryptocurrencies. The window of opportunity, attention span and resource for effective regulating economic activity is limited. We should focus on the (few!) important polluting classes such as transport and power p…

>We should focus on the important polluters, not minor consumers Do you feel the same way about causes of death? Imagine saying "who cares Cystic Fibrosis kills x people, heart disease is worse!" Also, other consumers like cement, fossil fuel production, and plastics HAVE been focused on. Bitcoin is new and only recently popular so we don't know much about it and it's true cost.

>Imagine saying "who cares Cystic Fibrosis kills x people, heart disease is worse!"

You're completely missing the point here: we have finite time and resources to deal with problems. We must dedicate these finite time and resources in the most efficient way to possible to achieve the most desired outcome.

If by "worse" you mean "heart disease causes more deaths and drives higher social costs" then yes there is a strong argument to be made on addressing the root causes driving heart disease with more resources and time then cystic fibrosis. But, again, your analogy is contrived-and-forced-apples-to-oranges with the topic at hand.

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

#362

Post by effie »

_Microft wrote: post #241
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is not just some article, it's a peer-reviewed study from the University of Arizona. When junk science is peer-reviewed, it's even more of a problem.

Sure, but how do you tell that this is "junk science" as you call it?

Bad arguments. Estimating social benefit of cryptocurrencies by the dollar cost of mining operations is obviously incorrect.

No perspective on the big picture. Pollution they talk about is happening at power plants, not mining rigs. Net electric energy consumption of cryptocurrencies is less than 1% of world total.

Proposing targeted regulation policies on minor consumer classes, no mention of big problems(transport, coal plants) and big solutions (nuclear energy). Looks very biased.

This looks like a nice lobby/news propaganda scribble from a think tank working against cryptocurrencies. Not as a scientific paper.

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

#363

Post by random5634 »

jf22 wrote: post #360
random5634 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And neither is highlighting bitcoin, especially by focusing ONLY on the mining aspect of it. The use of the network is also part of the bitcoin story. If instead of using new bitcoins mined they did transaction value per day (ie, $20B+) the math would be totally different. If you applied this same damage model to something people had fondness for (ie, driving an electric car) you'd realize we should be working as HAR…

What good would transaction value per day be? This is like counting your salary twice, once when you earn it, once when you spend it, lol.

Because the transactional ledger of bitcoin is what is driving electricity use, and another statement might be, for every $1 transacted on the bitcoin ledger, 0.0005 dollars in health damage is caused. (it's roughly a factor of 1000 more volume then new mining, and over time new mining is going to get smaller and smaller)

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

#364

Post by effie »

GavinMcG wrote: post #232
trident5000 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could make up some fear mongering "study" about almost every energy using topic. AI and video rendering for instance which is often for some marginal purpose. Or heating pools, idle electronics, big homes with AC, leisure travel, all the useless crap bought and manufactured in China with dirty coal, etc.

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.

You are misunderstanding the point. Of course, cryptocurrencies have externalities and it is good to quantify them. In that respect, the paper could be useful. The objection is, this paper makes no attempt to analyze and show cryptocurrencies are worth attention any more than other 1000 consumer classes. It just states "crypto has externalities", does not weight them properly in perspective and advocates for "more research" and "lets regulate". That is irresponsible. Regulation should happen at the biggest most important polluters such as transport and coal plants.

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

#365

Post by effie »

pwinnski wrote: post #340
trident5000 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many I just listed use more energy than btc...so yes, they are.

You mentioned five things, all of which are frequently focused on as contributors to global climate change. Well, I'm not sure I've seen "AI and video rendering" mentioned in that context, but I'm also not sure that they use more power than crypto mining. But definitely I've seen articles addressing idle electronics[0], big homes with AC[1], leisure travel[2], and "all the useless crap bought and manufactured in Chin…

By endlessly arguing about regulating minor consumer/production classes the attention span and opportunities for effective change diminish. The regulation should happen for the big polluters first, i.e. coal plants, transport ships. When that is done and the problem is largely fixed, you can spend your time arguing about cryptocurrency taxation, why not.

It makes no sense, in the current situation, to discuss 10000 small energy consumers and appropriate pollution tax for all of them. We need to fix the damn energy production first.

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

#366

Post by effie »

newsclues wrote: post #152
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.

Hydro may be clean, but it still has environmental costs. Concrete and destruction of ecosystems and changes in water systems can all have negative impacts on the planet. And that is the best case scenario

Why is such as a man-made change necessarily net negative impact on the planet? It may have both negative and positive impacts. Maybe the new dam allows other species to migrate in and increase diversity. It is complicated, depends on circumstances etc.

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

#367

Post by effie »

user-the-name wrote: post #128
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.

> Most of this electricity comes from the cheapest source of power, which is hydro. This is not actually true. And even if it were, it is irrelevant. If crypto uses green energy, it displaces other users to use more dirty energy. The environmental cost of crypto is not that of the energy it uses, it is that of the dirtiest energy it displaces other users onto. (Crypto also uses massive amounts of dirty energy directl…

> If crypto uses green energy, it displaces other users to use more dirty energy.

"I bought a solar panel and AC converter to consume less from the grid. Oops, because of that now I am displacing my neighbours to use more dirty energy. How silly of me."

Seriously your argument makes no sense. How does one minor consumer of green energy displace you from doing the same?

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

#368

Post by aww_dang »

jf22 wrote: post #349
aww_dang wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there parties that benefit disproportionately by establishing a cost for carbon and the definition thereof? 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.

Ah yes, the "this is obviously a conspiracy" defense despite offering no evidence of such a conspiracy at all.

I've posed questions about incentives.

In lieu of engaging in a discussion, you've dismissed the possibility. You've provided no rationale (or evidence for that matter) for this flippant dismissal. Instead, you offer the 'conspiracy theory' pejorative. It is not a starting point for a conversation.

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

#369

Post by loceng »

ric2b wrote: post #337
loceng wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's enough that's not similar to make them an apple to oranges comparison.

Can you elaborate on some of those differences?

I have in the past, I have seen comments by a few others who do a decent job as well; I don't have time right now.

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

#370

Post by effie »

random5634 wrote: post #304
gitrog wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pray tell, which part is it that you find fault with?

It assumes the value of Bitcoin is in the mining of new coins. The network also has value as a ledger to record transfers of Bitcoin (billions per day) which contributes to the value of the network The analysis can be generalized to say anything that uses 0.05 electricity creates these large harms. Perhaps true, but it’s not going to be unique to Bitcoin

This. This bad argument about value of cryptocurrencies being mining, lack of perspective and policy proposals in the paper are the most obvious signs of bias.
Post reply on HN