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

Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

#51

Post by Uehreka »

arebop wrote: post #39
Uehreka wrote: post #27

Right now very few people are actually using Bitcoin for everyday transactions, and yet still the carbon footprint rivals many large countries. If this became the world’s primary currency (as many crypto fans seem to want) it would increase our total carbon footprint by multiple orders of magnitude. I do not see many people in the crypto community approaching this with the deadly seriousness it deserves. Most convers…

If the cost of electricity rose 100% now, the kwh used to mine bitcoin would drop correspondingly. IOW, Bitcoin isn't a scheme to destroy the world by exhausting energy or destroying the planet, it's just a bunch of people who want distributed consensus and they're willing to pay for it and you can't fathom why. You don't complain about aluminum fiends or anybody else spending money and potentially exploiting carbon…

I mean yeah, I’d love to propose a worldwide carbon tax and solve the root problem here! But that seems unlikely to happen on a short timescale, and without it we’ll see coal plants that were driven out of business by solar’s cheapness re-open now that there’s all this extra demand for energy (and solar isn’t keeping pace).

And don’t tell me what I don’t complain about ;) I’m plenty concerned with other sources of carbon emissions too.

As for the rest: I feel like another bad trope I see in these debates is the “you just don’t get it. Enjoy your irrelevance” thing. If crypto is misunderstood, then explain it. If there’s something people like me aren’t getting, help us get it. The burden of proof is on crypto-boosters to demonstrate why this is worth it and what the actual endgame here is.

Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

#52

Post by verdverm »

eikenberry wrote: post #30
j_walter wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a way to differentiate clean hydro and dirty hydro? In the US the most recent "green" standards exclude hydroelectricity as renewable energy.

Really? That seems dumb. Have any references for why they made this decision?

If you want to be nice to the environment, damming (damning?) rivers would intuitively seem like a bad thing for wildlife.

Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

#53

Post by quickthrowman »

kloch wrote: post #41

The only meaningful comparison is to the energy usage of the legacy banking system. Banks have a lot of data centers, office space, employees who drive to work etc.

The banking system finances all commercial activity, it’s essential to civilization.

BTC is not.

(DeFi is used to speculate on crypto prices with leverage, which is also not essential)

Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

#55

Post by antonvs »

nanidin wrote: post #48
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also seems like there is zero justification for you 46M Americans figure. https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoin-users/ There might be 46M wallets related to US accounts with Bitcoin in them, but 1 person could own 45M of them (I seriously doubt it, but you get the point).

Yep - it seems we're getting deep into "73.6% of statistics are made up on the spot" territory no matter which source we choose :) Which then raises the question - why did the author of the tweet choose 10 million?

> the author of the tweet

I think I see the problem.

Why does anyone treat tweets as though they're academic papers? It's just some rando BSing.

Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

#56

Post by [deleted] »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #44
javert wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really incapable of understanding that bitcoin might not be a waste? An unfathomable transfer of wealth from normal people to the rich is happening because of the Fed. How? The rich can borrow money from the Fed at near zero rates. They use that money to buy assets. Meanwhile, the government borrows money from the Fed at near zero rates. The government spends the money, inflating the circulating money supply.…

> Are you really incapable of understanding that bitcoin might not be a waste? Quite capable of understanding, thank you. I just think you're wrong.

[deleted]

Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

#57

Post by jessaustin »

mdoms wrote: post #9
humaniania wrote: post #6

Based on screenshots posted to an unverified twitter account? Why would this get upvotes?

The source is in the very next tweet. https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x?sh...

From the conclusion to that link:

...we found that they do not pose a large threat to the climate, mainly because the energy consumption of PoW blockchains does not increase substantially when they process more transactions.

Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

#58

Post by jessaustin »

aresant wrote: post #20
aresant wrote: post #18

If you want to get a read on the "Reduce your carbon footprint" camp's success, check out the top selling vehicle in America (1) Treating this as a "crypto problem" and not a general energy / fuels problem does almost nothing but sell clicks / views / newspapers. Trying to contribute here though on where we really are in crypto and angles of attack for discussion, vs an alarmist view: 1) BTC maximalists don't care an…

I'm not sure what I'm writing above that isn't objective I would love to hear responses vs downvotes to the floor Do you think that we can regulate crypto into lower energy use? Change hearts and minds?

Objectivity or its lack has very little to do with downvotes on bitcoin threads. These bring out all the would-be authoritarians to impose their will on HN posts in a way they can't impose it on crypto in the real world.

Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

#59

Post by ephbit »

ericb wrote: post #49
arebop wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the cost of electricity rose 100% now, the kwh used to mine bitcoin would drop correspondingly. IOW, Bitcoin isn't a scheme to destroy the world by exhausting energy or destroying the planet, it's just a bunch of people who want distributed consensus and they're willing to pay for it and you can't fathom why. You don't complain about aluminum fiends or anybody else spending money and potentially exploiting carbon…

Except exponential scarcity is built in, we're not near the end yet, and the scarcity is causing exponential growth in energy expenditure, carbon release, and heat. Bitcoin would be the perfect scheme to destroy the world.

Scarcity is built in, yes .. but block reward halving is built in as well.

Now if there were a time to come, when lightning network allowed wide adoption of bitcoin as an actual payment system ... and the speculation on ever rising price were obsolete, because the price was more or less stable ... then the limited mining rewards would put a stop to exponential growth in energy expenditure.

Where do I get it wrong? (Serious question)

Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita

#60

Post by ephbit »

javert wrote: post #31
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that's your goal, wasting electricity on Bitcoin might not be the optimal route to getting there...

Are you really incapable of understanding that bitcoin might not be a waste? An unfathomable transfer of wealth from normal people to the rich is happening because of the Fed. How? The rich can borrow money from the Fed at near zero rates. They use that money to buy assets. Meanwhile, the government borrows money from the Fed at near zero rates. The government spends the money, inflating the circulating money supply.…

This is pretty much how I interpret what's happening in the US and Europe as well.

Anyone here who can point their finger on any of the above statements and explain why it's wrong?

Post reply on HN