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

Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#51

Post by scottiebarnes »

woodruffw wrote: post #42
scottiebarnes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a decentralized network that is permissionless to participate in, pseudonymous and censorship resistant is very valuable to society. I think an asset that can be secured, transmitted, and stored in self custody cheaply that allows people to escape hyperinflation is quite valuable to society. I think understanding central banking and monetary policy and history of money are not strong points on HN. Everyone he…

> I think a decentralized network that is permissionless to participate in, pseudonymous and censorship resistant is very valuable to society. Any or all of these things can be true! But you're going to need to show that Bitcoin satisfies each of these conditions. Last time I checked, it's a public, immutable ledger that anybody (not just officials with warrants) can track. The senses in which the Bitcoin network is…

> The senses in which the Bitcoin network is "permissionless," "pseudonymous," etc. are all adaptive (and mostly non-formalized!) properties of behavior on the Bitcoin network, each of which has spectacularly failed in well-publicized ways.

In a closed system, all you see are public keys sending/receiving from other keys. If you want to identify or censor a person or their transaction, you need external information linking them to a particular address. New addresses can be created on the fly simply by creating a new wallet, which is software that can be run on any device anywhere in the world, thanks to open source code.

> Conspicuously absent from this analogy are deflationary spirals, one of which Bitcoin currently is in. You don't need to be an economist to understand that the defining property of currency is its ability to provide liquidity to transactions (i.e., serve as a medium of exchange); deflationary assets are famously poor mediums of exchange.

I don't know how deflation plays out with Bitcoin, no one does. But in 100 years if we want to change it, we can, because its an open source protocol that can be forked and forced to compete with other ideas.

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#52

Post by amptorn »

throwaway73838 wrote: post #46
pjerem wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they would be like electric space heaters. Inefficient vs heat pumps. Sure, you'd get some coins on top of it. But you (I) would be still considering this to be a waste of energy.

Not really. You would be doing a portion of work that would be done anyway, but instead, it’s being done in your house, for free, and you get a warm house. That’s a positive externality. Much more efficient than using energy for the sole purpose of creating heat.

It's not free! You have to pay for the electricity and the expensive mining hardware! And it's less energy efficient than heating your house using conventional means.

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#53

Post by woodruffw »

scottiebarnes wrote: post #51
woodruffw wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think a decentralized network that is permissionless to participate in, pseudonymous and censorship resistant is very valuable to society. Any or all of these things can be true! But you're going to need to show that Bitcoin satisfies each of these conditions. Last time I checked, it's a public, immutable ledger that anybody (not just officials with warrants) can track. The senses in which the Bitcoin network is…

> The senses in which the Bitcoin network is "permissionless," "pseudonymous," etc. are all adaptive (and mostly non-formalized!) properties of behavior on the Bitcoin network, each of which has spectacularly failed in well-publicized ways. In a closed system, all you see are public keys sending/receiving from other keys. If you want to identify or censor a person or their transaction, you need external information l…

> In a closed system, all you see are public keys sending/receiving from other keys.

Sure. Now show me a human economy that's a closed system! We meat-sacks love our groceries, movie tickets, &c.

> If you want to identify or censor a person or their transaction, you need external information linking them to a particular address.

As we've seen with every single legal exchange, this isn't true: you only need to identity the coins themselves as having been laundered or obtained from/otherwise mixed with the produce of a crime, and nobody will accept your money. Bitcoin cannot solve the Big Man With A Stick problem, and ignoring the problem makes it strictly worse than fiat.

> But in 100 years if we want to change it, we can, because its an open source protocol that can be forked and forced to compete with other ideas.

"Just change the protocol" has worked out famously well for every cryptocurrency so far ;-)

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#54

Post by amptorn »

throwaway73838 wrote: post #19

I heard an interesting argument for Bitcoin recently. It represents a way to move energy around the world wirelessly. For instance, you can use geothermal power in a very isolated, cold climate that previously would be unusable for any purpose. As Bitcoin’s power needs are decentralized, all it needs is an internet connection. You could have a Bitcoin mine in outer space, if you wanted. Not sure why I’m being downvot…

> Bitcoin can use energy in places you couldn’t get to before

You're suggesting a scenario where, instead of using energy at point A to do useful work, we use energy at point B to generate Bitcoin to buy energy at point A to do the useful work. In this scenario,

  1. the same amount of energy is still being generated at point A, and
  2. an incredible amount of additional energy is being generated at point B for no reason

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#55

Post by holbrad »

formvoltron wrote: post #13
DavidD wrote: post #5

Would it be possible to take the extra heat from mining and the co2 to make a really nice greenhouse that can use the co2, seems like plenty of space to make it happen in montana.

The planet will die, but at least we have these nice plants and these coins.

Hate to be picky.

But the planet is going to be just fine, for a very long time.

Unless global warming triggers a nuclear war, humans as a species are also going to be fine.

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#56

Post by nootropicat »

throwaway73838 wrote: post #19

I heard an interesting argument for Bitcoin recently. It represents a way to move energy around the world wirelessly. For instance, you can use geothermal power in a very isolated, cold climate that previously would be unusable for any purpose. As Bitcoin’s power needs are decentralized, all it needs is an internet connection. You could have a Bitcoin mine in outer space, if you wanted. Not sure why I’m being downvot…

It doesn't move any energy, it adds new energy consumption while producing nothing of actual value. There are ponzi coins and tokens that don't need PoW to exist, that's a significantly less damaging way for people to satisfy their ponzi itch.

Eventually mining is self-extinguishing as collectively bitcoin holders only lose wealth. There aren't many potential new buyers left at this point, so the set of bitcoin holders can't change that much. On a long time scale bitcoin is a method to make people that think it's a good idea poorer than everyone else, at least in the average case. Social darwinism.

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#57

Post by scottiebarnes »

woodruffw wrote: post #53
scottiebarnes wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The senses in which the Bitcoin network is "permissionless," "pseudonymous," etc. are all adaptive (and mostly non-formalized!) properties of behavior on the Bitcoin network, each of which has spectacularly failed in well-publicized ways. In a closed system, all you see are public keys sending/receiving from other keys. If you want to identify or censor a person or their transaction, you need external information l…

> In a closed system, all you see are public keys sending/receiving from other keys. Sure. Now show me a human economy that's a closed system! We meat-sacks love our groceries, movie tickets, &c. > If you want to identify or censor a person or their transaction, you need external information linking them to a particular address. As we've seen with every single legal exchange, this isn't true: you only need to identit…

> Sure. Now show me a human economy that's a closed system! We meat-sacks love our groceries, movie tickets, &c.

Yes, you're not required to identify yourself when you purchase those things. So a transaction between two parties for the exchange of goods would be private. I can send money to my mom and you'll never know.

> As we've seen with every single legal exchange, this isn't true: you only need to identity the coins themselves as having been laundered or obtained from/otherwise mixed with the produce of a crime, and nobody will accept your money.

No one can stop an address from receiving from another address. You can implement tracing and enforcement to make it difficult for a particular transaction within a particular jurisdiction, but this is a function of social implementation, not the network. And if you want even more anonymity, look into Monero.

> "Just change the protocol" has worked out famously well for every cryptocurrency so far ;-)

Not sure what you mean by that. I think the proliferation of competing ideas and forks is a good thing. Most projects are bad, but over time only the strong will survive.

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#58

Post by zbrozek »

tenuousemphasis wrote: post #30
zbrozek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't obvious that mining goes away at any cost. Personally I'm in the "do both" camp. Have a simple carbon tax, but also find some inoffensive way to get rid of the mining. Both sound hard.

While we're picking and choosing who gets to consume electricity, let's get rid of video gaming, casinos, porn websites, etc.

That's why the second task is hard. Probably the right way to do it isn't via the electricity angle, but the securities or commerce angles.

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#59

Post by lowkey »

amptorn wrote: post #49
throwaway73838 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially. It could be entirely generated from sources of energy which could not be utilized for any other purpose. There is a world of untapped energy that is only restricted by isolation. So you could entirely run bitcoin without increasing global energy output, if that makes sense. There would be no opportunity cost of lost power to current grids, as it is using power that cannot be used for any other purpose. I…

> There is a world of untapped energy that is only restricted by isolation. So you could entirely run bitcoin without increasing global energy output, if that makes sense. No? Using previously untapped energy for Bitcoin, or for anything , does, in fact, increase global energy output.

Increasing global energy output isn't a negative, provided that energy output is clean energy. In fact, developing our ability to produce and use energy is virtually synonymous with the development of human civilization.

Re: Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared

#60

Post by thinkmassive »

pjerem wrote: post #45
throwaway73838 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, if you had a Bitcoin mining set up in your home, you’d be more worried about keeping it cool. But you raise a good point - heat is another potential positive externality/resource of Bitcoin mining. Imagine if instead of heaters, we all had decentralized mining rigs to warm our houses?

Well, they would be like electric space heaters. Inefficient vs heat pumps. Sure, you'd get some coins on top of it. But you (I) would be still considering this to be a waste of energy.

You can augment a heat pump with a miner that uses immersion cooling
Post reply on HN