Topic: [2019-03-24] Statistics Shows Gold Mining Costs 23 Times more than Bitcoin Minin (Read 181 times)

That. I don't understand why people still complain about low quality articles. If you don't like certain news outlets because they are known for their lack of quality, then just skip them whenever someone uses them as article source.

The current bear market makes news outlets dig very deep to find content because there isn't anything else to report about, and that while you have employees that need to be paid and other returning expenses.

Nothing is worse than traditional mining. And then how about oil drilling and its extraction process? I can't even describe how much chemicals are being dumped (legally and illegally) in rivers the local environment suffers badly from.

I don't think we can call it as 'community' though. Pretty sure there will always be some crappy journalism anywhere, this is just one of them. But there are still good source that we can find. They're running a business, so whatever story that can increase traffic is good. Even though it is not facts.

They do not even factor in the environmental impact of Gold mining and the lives that was lost in Gold mining.

The same goes for the mining for resources to produce coins and fiat currencies. This type of mining is a lot more harmful to the environment than a few thousand Asic mining farms that are using electricity that are generated by hydro power plants.   

In any case, the calculations that mining bitcoins takes 23 times less energy than gold mining is a good argument for bitcoins. Anything can be criticized, however, when far-fetched accusations in the direction of Bitcoin are used, this is a good argument in its defense. In any case, the problem with the consumption of an extremely large amount of energy for the extraction of Bitcoin is clearly contrived. Especially in our time, when the amount of energy production from alternative renewable sources is growing, which, moreover, are getting cheaper every year.

So, yet another useless crypto news site posts "news" about a no-name twitter user who made a post with 9 likes and 2 reposts about how gold mining costs more than Bitcoin mining. Is this how low our community has fallen? I know crypto journalism was bad, but it seems every time I visit this board, it becomes worse and worse.

The more mining costs, the more miners have to sell, that's how things are.

Despite PoW being the best option for Bitcoin where we are today, it's horrible that we basically are paying retarded Asian companies to take care of Bitcoin's security. They fucked up badly in 2017 which resulted in the fees to explode and confirmations take much longer to come through because of slower block times and Bitmain mining empty blocks.

Don't forget that they also used people's hashrate for their silly ego hash war with BSV.

It's much better to see smaller individual miners have more control over the hashrate they point to whatever large pool.

Bitcoin is cheaper to mine and is potentially more rewarding. If it pumps like it did two years ago then gold will look like used toilet rolls compared to bitcoin

It's not really comparable per se. Gold obviously has a higher "user" count, and a much bigger market capitalisation.

But the narrative that bitcoin is somehow more environmentally damaging, when compared to the extraction of metals that are basically solely used for their monetary and investment properties, as well as traditional centralised transaction processing, is illogical. We can talk about how much more energy or damage gold mining is using compared to bitcoin, but I think most significantly, it is important to realise that the energy used in bitcoin mining is used to sustain the network - it isn't going to waste.

The bottom line is, if the energy that is used by bitcoin miners is sustainably generated, then there shouldn't be a problem. And there is no indication that bitcoin uses significantly more energy than what traditional banking institutions do, especially when you consider the environmental costs of developing real life locations.

They'll always argue next that Bitcoin is a volatile asset as compared to Gold in which it is stably moving upwards. They will always say that Gold is a physical asset that has more use and value for human beings which Bitcoin cannot do. But the thing is if Environmetalist argue this statement they are also agreeing that this gold miners are right to destroy the environment they are advocates. Mining Bitcoin is way different unlike mining minerals and oil as aside from the electricity they consume they also depleted the limited resources the Earth has.

It won't persuade the environmentalists because if the cost of mining continues to go up in proportion to the value, when bitcoin reaches 14$ billion it's mining cost will surpass gold by almost $100 million. In their words a useless form of electronic money will now take more to mine than a precious metal used to create various real life products.

I don't really care what they think. POW is one of the factors that give bitcoin its value and makes the network more robust. The more it costs the better.

Data posted by a Twitter user simply known as Asimov shows that Gold mining consumes 23 times more energy than Bitcoin mining. Asimov’s data shows more on banking systems, governments and paper currency minting.

The figures showed that Gold costs about $105 billion annually and consumes about 475 million GJ while Bitcoin mining costs only $4.5 billion and uses only 183 million GJ annually. Other such systems like Gold recycling, paper currency and minting, banking system and government all cost more than Bitcoin mining.

This data is important because one of the major arguments against the existence of Bitcoin has been that the cost and electricity consumption is extravagant. Although there have been several scientific proofs that this is not the case, governments and individuals who do not like Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies for that matter have always stressed this point.

Some have purported that Bitcoin mining consumes more electricity than 82% of all countries of the world. The article claims a bitcoin mining firm in Mongolia consumed as much energy as a Boeing 737. Although it is not clear how these calculations but this has been proven several times to be untrue. In fact, some have shown that Bitcoin mining may actually be beneficial to the environment.

According to a study by Nodeblockchain published in 2018, the cost of mining will force miners to opt for more renewable sources of energy which are friendly to the environment, thus benefiting the environment in the process. It also adds that the reward of mining is dependent on energy efficiency and so energy waste will only reduce mining efficiency as well as rewards, a situation that every miner would want to avoid.

This study alone shows Bitcoin is not the problem as far as energy consumption and damage to the environment is concerned. If anything, it shows that Bitcoin mining ensures even energy distribution as miners tend to move towards places where there is unfairly abundant power. This is not likely to result in “The Cryptoapocalypse” that some claim will happen soon if Bitcoin continues to exist.

Asimov’s data may be another reminder that Bitcoin is not the problem and although it has several weaknesses such as such as scalability, it does not consume more energy than most countries of the world and will not cause an environmental catastrophe but may actually save us from both.

Source: ZyCrypto