61–70 of 578 posts
A simple move that would ban selling fossil power plants for cryptocurrencies mining purpose BUT allowing to do so for the carbon-neutral energy would be a win-win for both sides and will help the transition from carbon-heavy energy.
Simpler: ban banks and credit card companies from dealing with anything related to cryptocurrency
Is it possible for people to source or certify sustainable Bitcoin? Since there is a transaction chain, can you choose to buy or boycott “dirty coins”?
There is a crypto called Monero that doesn't have this problem. it is growing fast.
Is it possible for people to source or certify sustainable Bitcoin? Since there is a transaction chain, can you choose to buy or boycott “dirty coins”?
It's still on the same power grid. The renewable energy would have been used one way or another. It's still contributing to the burning of fossil fuels on the grid.
[1] https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/documents-donnees/pdf/compa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's renewable therefore I can waste as much of it as I want."
It's true though. You can throw up a 1kw system for under 1k now.
If you can get on the grid, then the power your plant produces and what you do with it are two separate things. Instead of e.g. mining crypto, you could sell the power generated. By using it instead of selling it, you're just pushing other users to use more fossil fuels.
The calculus IMO is power consumption * grid-wide average CO2 emissions. You can't just count using solar as 0 emissions, because using solar doesn't bring that average to 0. It reduces it slightly.
This is simply perverse.
It's perverse, just like almost every other form of economic activity on this planet, eg. farming (fertilizer/herbicide run-off), mining (tailing ponds), factories (air/ground/water pollution). The underlying reason is simple: externalities aren't being priced in, which allows the owners of such operations to make money while everyone pays the price.
Farming produced food to eat. Mining produces minerals to build things with. Factories produce goods.
Bitcoin produces... A series of bits that some people will pay money for? It seems like bitcoin is basically fine art at this point.
Is it possible for people to source or certify sustainable Bitcoin? Since there is a transaction chain, can you choose to buy or boycott “dirty coins”?
What do you mean? All transactions are verified by miners, so all transactions are equally "dirty".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, the propellers get used quickly and are not recyclable AFAIK.
I would like justification for the downvotes please. Thanks.
I'll refrain from commenting on environmental issues in the future, it's just some sort of shit-flinging contest.
It would be great if the gigantic Bitcoin energy demand leads to renewable energy breakthroughs.
... do we really need another energy demand to drive R&D? We're already working with an energy budget equivalent to 1/3 the decay that powers the Earth's fiery core. Is it really fair to credit any new breakthroughs to the last ~12 GW of demand, instead of the first ~18 TW?
EDIT: this is to say, renewable tech production is still following a learning curve (https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's perverse, just like almost every other form of economic activity on this planet, eg. farming (fertilizer/herbicide run-off), mining (tailing ponds), factories (air/ground/water pollution). The underlying reason is simple: externalities aren't being priced in, which allows the owners of such operations to make money while everyone pays the price.
None of what you listed are similar cases. Farming produced food to eat. Mining produces minerals to build things with. Factories produce goods. Bitcoin produces... A series of bits that some people will pay money for? It seems like bitcoin is basically fine art at this point.