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

Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 177 posts

Re: Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

#131

Post by tiluha »

tromp wrote: post #126
tiluha wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Monero uses RandomX as its hash algorithm, which is based on random code excecution and optimised for CPUs. https://github.com/tevador/RandomX

As I pointed out in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28521804 , hashcash with RandomX makes for a rather poor Proof of Work.

Please tell me if i am wrong because i am not sure if it is right.

Verifying 1 block requires the calculation of 1 hash. The hashrate for my CPU for RandomX is ~8000hashes/s. The monero blockchain currently has 2450000 blocks. blocks / hashrate = 5 minutes to verify the whole blockchain. Is that really that bad?

Re: Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

#132

Post by erikerikson »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #116
erikerikson wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, lots of people say "be the change" and I know quite a few who follow that suggestion. I have friends who eat vegan, eat more local foods, have cut down meat consumption, avoid travel (yes, before COVID), are reducing their plastic use to near zero, and so on. Few are taking all of that on but some are and there are many other ideas I've heard people taking on. We keep a garden alongside getting the rest of…

"eat a vegan" Hilariously opposite to the intended message. Sorry, I just found it very funny, have an upvote to make up for my shitpost reply. I believe in leading by example rather than leading by dictate. Others seeing what's actually possible is far more encouraging of change than pointy fingers and harsh words.

Indeed, thanks for noticing the hilarity! :D

Re: Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

#133

Post by hbag »

maccolgan wrote: post #121
hbag wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah im sure accelerating the planet turning into an uninhabitable wasteland is really worth it just to stick it to the man, you fucking troglodyte

Yes it is.

yeah at least when we're all dying in the fucking water wars you'll be able to sit on your high horse talking about how you actively contributed to it but HEY! at least you didn't support the BANKS!

eat my shit and hair

Re: Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

#134

Post by mcjshciejebcu »

jcranmer wrote: post #104
mcjshciejebcu wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's getting close, and it doesn't look good for bitcoin, but the estimates of visa's energy useage are from a visa published report, and they seem to omit the energy usage needed to sustain employees. Of course, the bitcoin energy estimates also omit the energy usage for employees, but it's easy for me to imagine those are dwarfed by mining costs, and it's not easy for me to imagine something similar for visa.

The energy usage to attribute to employees should be proportional to the number of employees more than anything else. There's no a priori reason to expect that a "Bitcoin employee" uses more or less energy than a "VISA employee." So as far whether or not that matters... do you expect that there is a substantially different number of employees need to maintain the VISA system than the Bitcoin system, on a per-transact…

I would expect visa to need more employees to maintain their systems, but that's just my intuition, and it might be wrong. You're right, too. Even though humans are very resource intensive (they need > 2kWh of energy per day), they're unlikely to outweight many orders of, magnitude difference.

I'd like to see an estimate of visa's energy usage using the same method the source you linked used to estimate bitcoin's energy usage. Take visa's revenue and multiply it by some fraction of revenue used for energy use (they used 52%). Some very rough calculations I did put it about 1000 times more energy expensive than visa's own report. That's still 1000 times better than bitcoin, using the same method, but it'd interesting to know where the discrepancy comes from, and whether that should also be considered for bitcoin's energy use.

Re: Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

#135

Post by zsmi »

CaptArmchair wrote: post #130
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why people complain so much about the environmental impact of AirPods. I mean it would be great if they were rechargeable and recyclable etc - but they weigh 4g - about 1/50 of a pair of headphones. If the average person uses them for 2 years they'll be a drop in the ocean to the tens or hundreds of kilos of plastic and other objects they don't recycle fully in that time.

I got curious, and did some back of the envelope mathematics / Fermi estimation. > Analysts estimate Apple sold between 14 million and 16 million AirPods in 2017.[38] In 2018, AirPods were Apple's most popular accessory product, with 35 million units sold.[39][40] 60 million units were sold in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirPods In 2020, another 114 million units were sold. https://www.businessofapps.com/data…

~12% of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is no small matter and it shouldn't be dismissed but choice of denominator is important.

If we choose number of plastic bags consumed in American on an annual basis (100 Billion [1]) and go by the mass per bag (5.5g [2]) then just plastic bags in America is 550K tonnes/year of plastic.

Also, according to the UN the world produces as much as 50 million tonnes of electronic and electrical waste a year and they estimate 20% of it is recycled. [3]

So, ya. A penny saved is a penny earned and all. But it's still a penny.

[1] https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_...

[2] https://stanfordmag.org/contents/plastic-bags-to-recycle-or-...

[3] https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-repor...

Re: Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

#137

Post by newsclues »

me_me_me wrote: post #127
newsclues wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an old refurbished iPhone SE, and my AirPods don’t have long battery life but it’s still usable years later and third parties will put in a new battery. Lots of people use Apple products because they have a long life, not everyone is jumping to the latest and greatest.

Yes, yes. Thats why apple products score the lowest and place in the bottom of repeatability scores every single time. Its because you never have to fix their products right? You are picking ridiculous point and creating some ridiculous 'true Scotsman' >Lots of people use Apple products because they have a long life Like who? You and other 10 people?

> Like who? You and other 10 people?

Lots of people that don’t live in wealthy western countries or people that simply don’t have lots of disposable income.

Re: Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

#138

Post by me_me_me »

newsclues wrote: post #137
me_me_me wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, yes. Thats why apple products score the lowest and place in the bottom of repeatability scores every single time. Its because you never have to fix their products right? You are picking ridiculous point and creating some ridiculous 'true Scotsman' >Lots of people use Apple products because they have a long life Like who? You and other 10 people?

> Like who? You and other 10 people? Lots of people that don’t live in wealthy western countries or people that simply don’t have lots of disposable income.

> or people that simply don’t have lots of disposable income.

Yeah, that is the target market of Apple, people without disposable income. Keep digging man, keep digging.

Re: Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

#139

Post by tromp »

tiluha wrote: post #131
tromp wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I pointed out in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28521804 , hashcash with RandomX makes for a rather poor Proof of Work.

Please tell me if i am wrong because i am not sure if it is right. Verifying 1 block requires the calculation of 1 hash. The hashrate for my CPU for RandomX is ~8000hashes/s. The monero blockchain currently has 2450000 blocks. blocks / hashrate = 5 minutes to verify the whole blockchain. Is that really that bad?

Maybe you have a particularly beefy CPU. What if you have the original Raspberry Pi? Why do you think they made not checking the PoW supporting the checkpoint the default?

Re: Bitcoin's growing e-waste problem

#140

Post by satronaut »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #42
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #19

Completely pales next to something as egregious as disposable tech that sells in the millions and only has a lifespan of 2 years tops like AirPods. They will still be washing up on beaches 100 years after every single person involved in their design has passed. Whole electronics industry needs to take this stuff more seriously, we need more replaceable batteries and storage, right to repair on a global level and laws…

As right as you are, that's besides the point. Bitcoin is waste. Pointing at other, more wasteful sources, is besides the point. Abolish both!

you either get it or you don't. I don't have time to convince you why it's good.
Post reply on HN