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

The Crypto-Chernobyl

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#61

Post by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 »

NortySpock wrote: post #43
eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much energy did it consume to mint all the physical metal coins we have in circulation? How much does it consume to mint fresh ones when the old ones are damaged? Bitcoins don't wear off, the ones we've been mining now will be in use for possibly centuries to come once the block reward is zero and only transaction fees will fund the miners. By then, mining will decrease a lot because people won't be willing to pa…

> Bitcoins don't wear off Sure, they just get trapped in a wallet that's lost in a hard-drive failure.

The cost of replacing them is essentially zero though:

New ones don't have to be minted because the existing ones are divisible with 8 decimal places, and that can easily be increased. Instead of minting new ones, the value of the existing ones increases, resulting in the decimal point of the value of a Bitcoin slowly shifting.

And the amount of currency which humans use typically is so small that storing the numbers to represent them is basically free, no matter if the decimal point shifts a bit. I would blind-guess that 128 bit will probably be enough until the heat death of the universe.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#63

Post by tylersmith »

jmhyer123 wrote: post #57
eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will sell off their equipment to the general public, which causes a lot of decentralization, and thus makes a coordinated attack more difficult.

That assumes the general public will buy it and use it which isn't likely if the incentive to do so isn't there.

Exactly this. If a huge industry miner can't afford to run a machine then the average crypto enthusiast can't either.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#64

Post by ekianjo »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #50
JoshTko wrote: post #32

My understanding is that the vast majority of crypto mining happens at dedicated farms in energy cost optimal locations such as Iceland where you can have clean geothermal energy. I haven't seen an analysis that looks at actual mining facilities carbon costs vs. a general average figure of CO/2 emissions per energy unit which absolutely would not apply in this case.

That's the narrative being pushed to distract from the massive scale of Bitcoin's energy usage, but it's largely a myth. Yes, some Bitcoin mines use cheap renewable energy. However, renewable energy isn't free. If it wasn't going to mining, it would be transferred through the power grid to other locations that rely on non-renewable energy sources. > the vast majority of crypto mining happens at dedicated farms in ene…

Iceland is not a very large or even dense country to begin with so 6x of their energy consumption does not tell you much.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#65

Post by PragmaticPulp »

emteycz wrote: post #55
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the narrative being pushed to distract from the massive scale of Bitcoin's energy usage, but it's largely a myth. Yes, some Bitcoin mines use cheap renewable energy. However, renewable energy isn't free. If it wasn't going to mining, it would be transferred through the power grid to other locations that rely on non-renewable energy sources. > the vast majority of crypto mining happens at dedicated farms in ene…

Have you forgotten about the existence of China (and its enormous hydro-dams)? Nobody suggested Iceland is the sole location of Bitcoin mining. > it would be transferred through the power grid to other locations that rely on non-renewable energy sources. Not at all. Electricity is not easy to transport nor store. Do you know there are many days with negative prices of electricity in many locations in EU, because the…

We transport electricity all the time, and we get better at it every year.

Do you live next to a power plant? Or even in sight of a power plant? No, because we have a power grid to move this electricity around.

I can assure you that new power generation plants are built with electricity transportation in mind. Surely you don't think that power plants are being built in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no way to use the electricity until Bitcoin conveniently came along with power-intensive proof-of-work requirements?

> Have you forgot about the existence of China (and its enormous hydro-dams)?

Please don't be facetious. Obviously I have not "forgotten" about China. However, you can surely agree we'd all be better off if new hydroelectric power was used to take older fossil fuel plants offline rather than performing arbitrary proof-of-work calculations.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#66

Post by paulryanrogers »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #33
MarcScott wrote: post #4

Still one of the best descriptions of bitcoin I have seen. > imagine if keeping your car idling 24/7 produced solved Sudokus you could trade for heroin https://twitter.com/Theophite/status/1030225104234373121

Imagine if the government required you to use ice cubes for currency and people wondered why everyone was using some highly inefficient workaround so their money didn’t vanish in between getting paid and paying bills.

Considering the volatility and poor fundamentals of BTC I think your ice cube analogy might be reversed.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#67

Post by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 »

nexthash wrote: post #40
eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much energy did it consume to mint all the physical metal coins we have in circulation? How much does it consume to mint fresh ones when the old ones are damaged? Bitcoins don't wear off, the ones we've been mining now will be in use for possibly centuries to come once the block reward is zero and only transaction fees will fund the miners. By then, mining will decrease a lot because people won't be willing to pa…

Ah, the Bitcoin gang has arrived! Have you considered the fact that coinage is actually for buying things ? It drives economic activity! Now explain what Bitcoin does

If I need to buy something then I need to buy something and will use whatever money I have at hand. It doesn't matter what it is called.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#68

Post by emteycz »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #65
emteycz wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you forgotten about the existence of China (and its enormous hydro-dams)? Nobody suggested Iceland is the sole location of Bitcoin mining. > it would be transferred through the power grid to other locations that rely on non-renewable energy sources. Not at all. Electricity is not easy to transport nor store. Do you know there are many days with negative prices of electricity in many locations in EU, because the…

We transport electricity all the time, and we get better at it every year. Do you live next to a power plant? Or even in sight of a power plant? No, because we have a power grid to move this electricity around. I can assure you that new power generation plants are built with electricity transportation in mind. Surely you don't think that power plants are being built in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no way to…

> Do you live next to a power plant? Or even in sight of a power plant? No, because we have a power grid to move this electricity around.

Of course I do. There are solars and wind turbines all around me, not even talking about the natural gas and coal powerplants I can see right out of my window near the edge of the city. And every year there are many gigawatts of electricity from these exact powerplants right next to me that go to waste because it can't be transported nor stored economically. Thankfully now there are some Bitcoin miners paying at least something for some of that waste electricity, so my own electricity can be cheaper.

> Surely you don't think that power plants are being built in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no way to use the electricity

I don't think that's what's happening. Powerplants are built close to human settlements. Even very nasty fossil fuel powered powerplants are right there. Even the nuclear powerplants are very close to major settlements. Surely we would've built them very far away if that was a possibility. Chernobyl was the one exception, because it secretly powered a gigantic radar called Duga.

> However, you can surely agree we'd all be better off if new hydroelectric power was used to take older fossil fuel plants offline rather than performing arbitrary proof-of-work calculations.

I can assure you there isn't a single Bitcoin miner preventing that. The reasons are different - it's not easy to transport or store electricity. Any electricity used for Bitcoin mining is waste electricity - electricity that can't be put into the grid for profit and would be generated anyways, regardless of Bitcoin. It's not economical to mine Bitcoin with ordinary grid electricity.

> Please don't be facetious. Obviously I have not "forgotten" about China

Why have you tried to compare Iceland's total energy output with Bitcoin energy consumption, then? That doesn't make any sense if you had China in mind.

When I look at wholesale electricity prices, it's 3 times more than you can earn with Bitcoin mining. Please explain to me: Why would powerplants not use electricity for profit if they could? Or are you saying that Bitcoin miners are losing money to mine Bitcoin?

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#69

Post by Apocryphon »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #41

I find this completely tone deaf, factually unconvincing, ignorant of the true required comparisons to the sum total power consumption of the whole transactional, fossil fuel and military industrial complex systems and infrastructure required to support the existence and usage of first world fiat currency. “Bitcoin uses a lot of energy” utterly doesn’t mean anything on its own like this. It’s infuriating to see such…

It's by Stephen Diehl, and as much as this community thinks it's above arguments from authority/ad hominem attacks, it will still favor reputable sources as a means of filtering. So ignoring an argument from him will hardly be sufficient.

Re: The Crypto-Chernobyl

#70

Post by eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 »

yongjik wrote: post #52
eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if you could just print money to pay your bills and hide the fact that you're bankrupt. - That's what governments do with fiat money.

...There surely is a large overlap between bitcoin enthusiasts and people who don't understand how fiat currency works, isn't it?

Which particular part did I not understand?
Post reply on HN