Topic: Bitcoin activity now uses more energy than all of Argentina (Read 260 times)

yes the article is clickbait and people like badecker fall for it.
anyway, for clarity:
bitcoins market does not have a trillion dollar capacity.
bitcoins market price is based on the current price of bitcoins single trade at a single time
the market cap is just a multiplication of that single trade at single time. there is no huge bank account holding $1 trill

my 'valuation' of bitcoin is never based on the 'market cap' (empty multiplication of no meaning)
my valuation of bitcoin is on the underlying value. how much money is being spent to secure the network and mine coins. because no one will sell a coin for less than it cost to mine/obtain. and no one would mine if its easier to just buy. so a true value baseline of substance and support is in the bottomline mining cost
($21k a coin=(meaningless marketcap multiplier value of $391b for those still loving cap values))

..
that said.
most major mining farms have contracts with utility companies. they do not buy out the domestic/residential supply allotment. instead they buy out the 'excess' electric. the difference between how much electric capacity a company can produce vs how much is actually used(capacity:supply:utility. 3 different things).

yep electric companies usually have a capacity of 120, supply say 110 constantly, where by the actual utility is only97. whereby normally that excess 13 goes to waste. unpaid for
bitcoin mining farms buy into that 13 with a contract of constant need/utility.
this then gives electric companies 13% profit for doing nothing more then pumping out what they always do. they can use this money to buy more generators(increase capacity potential above 120) or keep the generators working without having to turn off because they are even more profitable just to let it flow.
so everyone is happy

bitcoin miners have set their farms to only increase their hash by 1-5% periodically. because they dont want to shoot themselves in the foot spiking the difficulty.  but they also upgrade the farms hardware where the electric efficiency per hash gets better. so that the 1-5% hash increases periodically are not even 1-5% electric increases.

last point to make
bitcoin miners if all farms moved to argentina. then yes there wont be enough 'excess' contractable capacity for all of them. and yes in that situation they would be then eating into residential utility and causing brownouts.
..but mining farms are distributed across many countries. so each one is snipping only small chunks of individual countries 'excess'. thus not even harming the residential utility, but instead helping electric companies expand their capacity

Articles that benchmark this way aim for more clicks to make the headline interesting but not new.
Bitcoin carries a market with a capacity of about a trillion dollars and the network needs energy to ensure its continuity.
Mining equipment uses clean energies and can easily be converted to zero emissions in a short time unlike many other energy-consuming things.

This problem is really far-fetched, but it comes up again and again. Do we have enough electricity in the world and nowhere to get it? This is the period when solar panels were invented and it is possible to relatively efficiently directly convert solar energy into electrical energy? This energy is practically clean and does not pollute the environment, and therefore we should not have any problems with its production and use, including for the production of bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies.

an s19 is 95terrahash at 3.25kw an hour
bitcoin hashrate is 165,000,000terrahash
thats 1,736,842 asics
which is 5,644,736kw an hour

argentina households on average use 1.2kw an hour(a tv, light, frigefreezer, aircon combined exceed1.2)
so thats about 4.7million houses..
average argentina house uses 29kw a day=1.2kwh


so unless argentina has only 4.7 houses. and no additional businesses, factories, street lights..
then badecker and his sources have got the numbers wrong

yep bitcoin uses FAR LESS than argentinas electric consumption.
yep even far less than just the domestic residential use

badecker is known to take out dated articles. where those articles have already been debunked by not doing their own research thoroughly

so ill say it again. bitcoin uses far far less then argentinas residential electric and far far far far far less than total electric

What is C-zero-2? It's C-O-2, for carbon dioxide.

---

Neither does the food you eat create you. Rather, it strengthens you and sustains you. And if you are the kind of person who wants kids, it helps you to be strong in your procreation. If you are a woman who is healthy from food, your kids will be healthier from their growth inside your tummy.

We had a healthy world when the mammoths ranged the earth. Some of them froze in the great freeze, and are still being dug out of the Siberian permafrost. Let the earth get back to the warmth we once had.

When plants absorb CO2 and minerals, they become so healthy that they become much more fertile. They have kids, and there is much more CO2 for the kids to absorb. The plants that are food plants allow the human population to expand, and there is a whole lot more fun in the world with the healthy kids.

Forget all that global warming and overpopulation nonsense that some political blabber-mouths are trying to use to take over the world.

So? Don't humans abuse electricity? Don't they abuse water availability? What about gold mining or anything that has to do with paper? What about the cars? Most of the planet's damage (CO2) is not because of the bitcoin mining. Mining is far from that. Of course, they're gonna blame bitcoin, why shouldn't they? The ones that hate bitcoin are those that blame it for its environmental pollution, because they can't find many disadvantages. They'll have to do this, in order to protect their money. You see, blaming it for illegal use didn't seem to be enough.

But, taking it a little more philosophically: We are humans, we are not meant to do any good. Greed is what differentiates human from every other animal. Human wants more, no matter how much he has. The way mining works is in favour of human's greed. If price rises, mining becomes more profitable and if mining becomes more profitable there will be more mining. This is why some open-minded people blame bitcoin. Not because of it's current pollution, but of the future's. The way mining works combined with the human's greed is fatal for the environment.

So next time that a wise man tells you about the environmental danger called "mining", don't show him any statistics. Let's hope that in the future, there will be better and renewable energy sources to calculate those SHA256 hashes without having to hurt anyone, but to only do good! To only protect the network! To keep it decentralized!

I hope you are just playing fool, although it seems clear you are not.

CO2 does not create plants so it simply doesn't follow that since the world is producing an astounding amount of it there'd be more plants to grow. That's too ignorant of you to say the least.

Furthermore, please be informed that the poor earth's plants and trees can only absorb so much of CO2, around 25% only. The 50% stays in the atmosphere and the other 25% will be absorbed by the world's oceans. In other words, 75% of the world's CO2 will warm the earth. Only 25% is converted into food by plants and trees.


For goodness' sake!

This is insane! this is why when Iceland was the most preferable country to mine BTC, the people there quickly react to the public about the concern about their electricity. Imagine, if hundreds of establishments there constructed just to mine bitcoin. Their country will have an electricity shortage which makes the other industries out there struggled with their electricity supplies. You can read more of that here: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2019/4/15/iceland-is-a-bitcoin-miners-haven-but-not-everyone-is-happy

 

This is the challenge that the Bitcoin and cryptocurrency community has to be facing. I mean we should be demanding a greener and cleaner source of energy that should be use in mining in Bitcoin...and this will surely not happen easily but should be done on a gradual basis. Rather than dismiss the whole thing as if nothing is happening, solutions has to be found and that is where innovations can come in. There are now many improvements in the area of solar, wind and other sustainable alternative power and those in Bitcoin mining can come to where the sources are to minimize expenses. Or maybe someone could come up with a better mining solution that is requiring less power.

Despite of my disagreement on the over exaggeration on the power consumed by Bitcoin mining activities, I did not agree with your opinion.

The fact is plants on the planet has been decreasing so even if with the same CO2 emission amount, less amount of them will be consumed by plants on the planet. The more CO2 emission will make it worse. Fossil fuel is bad in the environmental aspect, always. It is true for all activities, not only bitcoin or crypto mining activities.

The world and human civilization need to find and use more renewable resources for their energy consumption.

Burning fossil fuels produces a lot of toxins,which are going into the atmosphere.It's not only CO2.
More CO2 into the atmosphere means global warming and global warming means unpredictable weather.
Unpredictable weather means more dry seasons,which is bad for agriculture and more powerful hurricanes,which is also bad for agriculture.
Anyway,the Bitcoin haters,that are saying that BTC mining is polluting the earth are just a bunch of hypocrites.You can't put the blame solely on BTC mining for all the pollution of the atmosphere.

This is the situation economic experts called positive externality. That is if the action of an economic agent affects other economic agents positively. In this case, we have bitcoin mining chain reaction, which are positive to economic growth.

1. Mining lead to generation of more electricity.

2. Generation of more electricity leads to healthier plants.

3. Generation of more electricity leads to job creation and investments.

These is a better way to think about mining, i think so.

---

Though, the thread does not specify in numerical quantification the amount of electricity used. But, i know that the current rise in cloud computing which leads to the establishment of data centers also need high electricity to be powered.

If we compare Google or AWS data centers power consumption to bitcoin power consumption, i guess the difference would be slim as both process data.

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

How much electricity is used for mining of gold? Massive amounts of mercury and other toxins are released in addition to wasting electricity during gold mining. And both gold and Bitcoin are having similar purpose. Why no one talks about the negative impact of gold mining, although they would like to lecture us on the usage of electricity for Bitcoin mining? Vast tracts of Amazon forest are being cut down in Brazil, Venezuela and Peru every year for the purpose of gold mining. At least Bitcoin mining doesn't require any deforestation.

The best solution for this is for Argentina to emit less C02 and offset the Bitcoin carbon footprint 

After all, many Argentinians are into Bitcoin coz their government has stopped them owning too many dollars.

They are massively into cattle farming that emit a load of C02, so they could just go vegetarian 

Then we need to build more coal and oil fired generators on a continental scale. Miners could use their mined bitcoins to set this up. Bitcoin could become a secondary source of income for them. They could provide electricity to the world... and to their mining, of course.

---

The more CO2, the more plants will grow. More and cheaper food so that we can have bigger populations. Think of not having to worry any longer if your contraceptive is working this time.

Along with the CO2 produced is the production of water. If cars ran clean, they would produce two basic things, CO2 and water. Water in the atmosphere - especially the upper atmosphere - would help the ozone do its job better.

Jobs would be for the electricity producing plants. But if there was more cheaper electricity, wouldn't the miners add more mining machines?

A fossil fuel power plant can be moved anywhere. You can ship fossil fuels anywhere. But it isn't easy to redirect the course of a river, and certainly not a nuclear plant.

---

Solar and wind is BS. Look at what happened to Texas. If they had had fossil fuels as a backup, and if the windmills had been designed properly, they might have made it through the recent storm without any loss of life. Fossil fuels are the answer. All the hype about wind and solar is big business trying to make money off the people.

---

A dam breaking isn't anything like a gradual increase in fossil fuel power plant numbers. Miners have a good start at having enough Bitcoin money to build power plants and make money in two areas.

That's oversimplifying things, which is terribly dangerous. Such comment is an unfortunate sign of some people's extreme lack of awareness. One time, a major dam in my country released water. People nearby were complaining. You are like asking, "why aren't more people happy about this?" They'll have water to drink, take a bath, clean their clothes, wash their cars, and so forth. Well, a number of them were killed moments later. Try to figure out the similarities.

Bitcoin is futuristic and it needs innovative solutions for energy consumption. Solar, wind and the renewable energy source is the solution and must be accomplished soon.

You really think that there is enough trees and algae to absorb all the CO2 in the atmosphere? CO2 is not the only byproduct of burning fossil fuels, there are Greenhouse gases present too and I don't think you know that it is bad for the ozone. It doesn't need a lot of manpower to operate a bitcoin mine so your argument on having more jobs available is not valid, try again. The only way that we can't get any environmental problem with bitcoin mining is when we put the mines closer to power source to cut costs like building it together with a hydro powerplant or a nuclear powerplant.
If they were to rise the prices to get back their investment in their own electric power, I think that it is fair that the prices increases.

Bitcoin mining eletricity costs is about securing the network against continental scale attacks.

You cannot make a 51% attack without consuming electricity on a continental scale. This is the level of security that a decentralized global currency needs.

Nothing to do with CO2 or plants or the environment. I hope some day we have some cleaner energy, like solar or wind, but that is not the reality now and bitcoin can do nothing about it.

The big question is, why aren't more people happy about this? I mean, burning fossil fuels is good for the world. It puts more CO2 into the atmosphere so that plants have food and grow better. More electric plants can be built, making more jobs available. Sounds like a win-win Bitcoin mining operation.

Think of the rise in the price of Bitcoin if the miners had to build their own electric power companies.


Bitcoin activity now uses more energy than all of Argentina