I want to know why there is this assumption that it is Bitcoin which is the "environmental disaster" for simply making economic use of completely legal fossil fuels.
If you want to assign moral agency, look to the ones actually causing the environmental destruction and the governments that actively promote it. Bitcoin runs just fine on renewables.
Topic: Bitcoin an environmental disaster? (Read 1814 times)
Been seeing this floating around the web lately:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/04/14/2234251/is-bitcoin-mining-a-real-world-environmental-problem?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed
Apparently since Bitcoin didn't completely crash they have nothing better to attack.
So, how does a bunch of computers (the only thing Bitcoin needs to function), which could be powered by any matter of wind, geothermal, solar, and other clean means that are already available right now, compare to:
Deforrestation for fiat note creation
Mining of precious metals often with toxic byproducts and land errosion that are mismanaged at great environmental cost (at a loss as the copper used to mint pennies is more valuable than the penny is as currency, for example)
All of the fuel and manpower needed to do both, maintenance of the big machinery, etc
The time and energy impact to continuously mint new fiat currency as it is lost or destroyed
Environmental impact of all of the trucks and armored cars needed to transport it
Human manpower required to transport and maintain it
You tell me which one is the real disaster environmentally. Bitcoin would free us of all of this infrastructure and the need to feed it real world materials, effort, and energy in place of something that could be done in a sustainable way with green energy sources (again, the tech is already here for this). Sure, there is a certain cost in creating new computers as well, though in the long run Bitcoin would do far less damage, at least once in place with the backing of renewable energy, all the computer has to do is be turned on after that and lasts much longer than the creation/destruction cycle of fiat currency which is unsustainable. It is true that the power demand will only increase, however one point not covered is these machines are about to get much more efficient as well with ASICs and the like.
Sad the media has to spin things like that when they are so completely untrue.
http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/04/14/2234251/is-bitcoin-mining-a-real-world-environmental-problem?utm_source=rss1.0moreanon&utm_medium=feed
Apparently since Bitcoin didn't completely crash they have nothing better to attack.
So, how does a bunch of computers (the only thing Bitcoin needs to function), which could be powered by any matter of wind, geothermal, solar, and other clean means that are already available right now, compare to:
Deforrestation for fiat note creation
Mining of precious metals often with toxic byproducts and land errosion that are mismanaged at great environmental cost (at a loss as the copper used to mint pennies is more valuable than the penny is as currency, for example)
All of the fuel and manpower needed to do both, maintenance of the big machinery, etc
The time and energy impact to continuously mint new fiat currency as it is lost or destroyed
Environmental impact of all of the trucks and armored cars needed to transport it
Human manpower required to transport and maintain it
You tell me which one is the real disaster environmentally. Bitcoin would free us of all of this infrastructure and the need to feed it real world materials, effort, and energy in place of something that could be done in a sustainable way with green energy sources (again, the tech is already here for this). Sure, there is a certain cost in creating new computers as well, though in the long run Bitcoin would do far less damage, at least once in place with the backing of renewable energy, all the computer has to do is be turned on after that and lasts much longer than the creation/destruction cycle of fiat currency which is unsustainable. It is true that the power demand will only increase, however one point not covered is these machines are about to get much more efficient as well with ASICs and the like.
Sad the media has to spin things like that when they are so completely untrue.
How much does it cost to run credit card processing? I'm sure there's no servers or anything involved with that. Banks don't use any power at all, do they? I'm sure the heating and cooling systems of tens of thousands of buildings in the US isn't having any impact on the environment at all...
Once the bitcoin block reward gets to 0. Only the most efficient miners will be running (let's call them power plants). This is bad, because transaction fees will all go into the hands of those few efficient miners (ie. power plants owned by govs). Who will eventually have significant amounts of bitcoins to manipulate inflation and deflation in the economy. Basicly it's back to 1800's gold system but with bitcoins.
So very long term, bitcoin looks very bad, and very short term as well due to high energy costs vs low economy activity (at these hot aired bitcoin prices).
To start with a solution to these problems, a new bitcoin 2.0 must be developed without the current mining structure.
So very long term, bitcoin looks very bad, and very short term as well due to high energy costs vs low economy activity (at these hot aired bitcoin prices).
To start with a solution to these problems, a new bitcoin 2.0 must be developed without the current mining structure.
But block reward halves every 4 years. By the time when 1 btc costs ~$1mln, block reward would probably be somewhere around 0. So miners would compete for fees. And more miners we have - less fees they charge due to competition. Inefficient miners will quit business, the ones that use cheap energy and efficient hardware will stay for long. Not sure how to estimate their total power consumption though. I think it depends mainly on bitcoin fees.
The figures being thrown around the news articles are unrealistic, at the current hash rate with the current generation hardware (developed with Bitcoin funding) the total network power usage would be 14.4mwh per day.
Assuming $0.1 for one kWh, that is $1400 per day. Spend $1400 in electricity to earn $360,000. Or 0.003 BTC per 1 BTC mined. Good luck with that.
Who is to stop others from joining? After all, I don't think you can have a more profitable business in the world. And a P2P network which means you couldn't even stop the other miners from joining if you wanted to.
Just take the block awards in dollars, devide by some fudge factor, 0.5 perhaps, and this is the cost of electricity the bitcoin network will tend to. Stop spewing the "efficient hardware" bullshit. It is false.
Perhaps ASIC are expensive now, and hard to find, but that will change. Chips get cheaper after you have the masks.
People here dont understand that the cost of energy doesnt matter much. what matters is miner profit. a lower energy price just increases hashrate and we're back to square 1...
the only thing that would 'save' bitcoin is free energy and rewardless mining.
the only thing that would 'save' bitcoin is free energy and rewardless mining.
I will reply with a few quotes from David J.C. MacKay’s book Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air:
Quote
Have no illusions. To achieve our goal of getting off fossil fuels, these
reductions in demand and increases in supply must be big. Don’t be distracted
by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone does a little, we’ll
achieve only a little. We must do a lot. What’s required are big changes in
demand and in supply
reductions in demand and increases in supply must be big. Don’t be distracted
by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone does a little, we’ll
achieve only a little. We must do a lot. What’s required are big changes in
demand and in supply
Quote
This “if-everyone” multiplying machine is just a way of making something
small sound big
small sound big
Quote
The mantra “Little changes can make a big difference” is bunkum, when applied
to climate change and power.
to climate change and power.
Comparing it to dollars doesn't make sense because the number of dollars in existence is disconnected from energy costs.
Not true.
http://adventurecolorad.hubpages.com/hub/Dollar-Coins-Saving-The-Government-Money
Bitcoin has a current market cap of around $43 million. It costs about $15,000 per day to maintain.
An equivalent amount of US one-dollar bills would cost over $3,500 per day, in printing costs alone just to replace worn bills. That doesn't even count transport and handling costs and all the energy wasted by the banking system, which, believe me is substantial. In fact just the energy used by ATM machines would probably dwarf the Bitcoin network. The energy used by the corporate jets owned by the largest banks would probably dwarf the Bitcoin network.
But it actually gets much better. Because the current Bitcoin market cap could grow by a factor of 100 with only, at most, a doubling or tripling of energy consumption. That would make it a 4.3 billion dollar market cap supported on less than $45,000 per day. The equivalent in dollar bills, say ten-dollar bills on average, would cost $35,000 per day, just to print replacement bills.
And 4.3 billion dollars isn't even that much in terms of a currency. There are 9.5 billion one-dollar bills in circulation alone.
Quote
The dollar bill has an average lifespan of 18-22 months. Some will last longer, but that means that every two years or so the U.S. Mint has to make a new supply of dollar bills. A dollar bill only costs 6 or 7 cents to make, but because it has to be replaced so frequently, it ultimately costs the government more money to use it over time.
Bitcoin has a current market cap of around $43 million. It costs about $15,000 per day to maintain.
An equivalent amount of US one-dollar bills would cost over $3,500 per day, in printing costs alone just to replace worn bills. That doesn't even count transport and handling costs and all the energy wasted by the banking system, which, believe me is substantial. In fact just the energy used by ATM machines would probably dwarf the Bitcoin network. The energy used by the corporate jets owned by the largest banks would probably dwarf the Bitcoin network.
But it actually gets much better. Because the current Bitcoin market cap could grow by a factor of 100 with only, at most, a doubling or tripling of energy consumption. That would make it a 4.3 billion dollar market cap supported on less than $45,000 per day. The equivalent in dollar bills, say ten-dollar bills on average, would cost $35,000 per day, just to print replacement bills.
And 4.3 billion dollars isn't even that much in terms of a currency. There are 9.5 billion one-dollar bills in circulation alone.
I my house we just use Green energy so no environmental disaster at all. Just look for company that only offers green energy. My current company in Spain (http://somenergia.coop)
same here only solar energy
I my house we just use Green energy so no environmental disaster at all. Just look for company that only offers green energy. My current company in Spain (http://somenergia.coop)
If bitcoin goes big what will certainly happen is that there will be tons of development done on low power ASICs. However there will be more ASICs too, using more power in total. If bitcoin goes big most miners would be mining for profit, so in the end the amount of power used is directly proportional to transaction fees + block reward (assuming a not too volatile fiat exchange rate OR electricity paid for with BTC) -- there won't be a significant number of people not mining for profit, and the number of people with "free" electricity will also be insignificant (I'm assuming the hardware cost would be comparatively low given the large market that would exist). And it can be pretty safe to assume the mining will be concentrated in places where electricity is cheapest, in order to maximise profit. And with more and more renewable electricity being available (certainly where I live) then the environmental cost of this electricity will go down. Which leaves you with the environmetnal production cost -- and this will always be insignificant compared the the environmental cost of housing, belongings etc.
I actually think that if Bitcoin becomes really big many miners will be at the front of new energy efficient technologies. Which the world will profit of.
This fallacy should go into the faq or something.
I read that somewhere else, it fails to mention the fact that 32000 houses can be powered in America, but bitcoin isn't only mined in America.
And if it was, it is only using 0.02% of our power supply.
And if it was, it is only using 0.02% of our power supply.
Quick back of the envelope calculation, based on all energy coming from oil (which isn't actually the case: my electricity is a mix of hydro and nuclear, and I travel by train and trolleybus both of which use electricity, i.e. very little oil use in my daily life when you ignore how my belongings/food are produced)
-Bitcoin mining pc with a few GPUs: 1kW, so 1 day of mining is 24kWh, or 86MJ. Petrol has 34.2 MJ/L , take 50% efficiency in generation and transmission and you get ~6l of petrol a day.
-Car running on petrol: 10l/100km (median from wikipedia), the average person drives 55km a day, so they burn 5l of petrol a day.
(I might've made some daft mistakes here, correct me if I did please.)
So, it appears that bitcoin mining is the same order of magnitude in terms of oil use and thus pollution as owning/driving a car in terms of one person owning a car or owning one bitcoin mining computer. And that's ignoring FPGAs, ASICs etc. In terms of total energy use it's completely insignificant, since a lot more people own cars than mine Bitcoin.
-Bitcoin mining pc with a few GPUs: 1kW, so 1 day of mining is 24kWh, or 86MJ. Petrol has 34.2 MJ/L , take 50% efficiency in generation and transmission and you get ~6l of petrol a day.
-Car running on petrol: 10l/100km (median from wikipedia), the average person drives 55km a day, so they burn 5l of petrol a day.
(I might've made some daft mistakes here, correct me if I did please.)
So, it appears that bitcoin mining is the same order of magnitude in terms of oil use and thus pollution as owning/driving a car in terms of one person owning a car or owning one bitcoin mining computer. And that's ignoring FPGAs, ASICs etc. In terms of total energy use it's completely insignificant, since a lot more people own cars than mine Bitcoin.
Well just to play devil's advocate there is some environmental cost to Bitcoin mining. Worthwhile, yes, of course I think so, but there is certainly a cost. By design mining is an inefficient. If you look at the total power used or just the raw amazing amount of computational power that must be lost / wasted in order to maintain a correct rate of block discovery it is pretty awe inspiring.
Then again you have Bitcoin'ers such as [damn forgot his name] who used the excess heat from his mining operation in a liquid cooling operation that was modified to heat his bathroom tiles. Now stuff like that is pretty damn cool.
For myself I merely just have a really hot apartment.
Anyone who feels guilt about energy waste could though instead just switch to vegetarianism for one day, or one half day, of the week and than be okay with the world.
Then again you have Bitcoin'ers such as [damn forgot his name] who used the excess heat from his mining operation in a liquid cooling operation that was modified to heat his bathroom tiles. Now stuff like that is pretty damn cool.
For myself I merely just have a really hot apartment.
Anyone who feels guilt about energy waste could though instead just switch to vegetarianism for one day, or one half day, of the week and than be okay with the world.
So what does work? How do we estimate the power that bitcoin will use orbit replaced the dollar?
I'm not sure, there will be some point where power consumption due to mining starts making everything else more expensive thus cancelling out the profit when measured in terms of goods and services. I imagine that will occur near the current amount of energy used for banking and transactions, perhaps higher if bitcoin use actually increases the efficiency of sending money around. Comparing it to dollars doesn't make sense because the number of dollars in existence is disconnected from energy costs.
So what does work? How do we estimate the power that bitcoin will use if it replaced the dollar?
So, how does a bunch of computers.. , compare to: ...
That's a really important question. We need to do the calculations.
As a start, let's say the total USD in existence is $10 trillion
If this was replaced in total by bitcoins, each bitcoin would be worth around $1 million.
With 150 BTC being mined every hour, that's $150 million per hour being mined, which would mainly be spent on capital repayments on equipment and electricity.
How many nuclear power stations does that electrical power equate to?
How many nuclear power stations does the existing dollar system equate to?
This method does not work because dollars are far overvalued vs the supply and price of electricity.
I actually think that if Bitcoin becomes really big many miners will be at the front of new energy efficient technologies.
Ultimately, more efficient technologies mean greater hash power, not less electrical power. (In practice it will initially decrease electrical power used while the miners are paying off their capital investment)
So, how does a bunch of computers.. , compare to: ...
That's a really important question. We need to do the calculations.
As a start, let's say the total USD in existence is $10 trillion
If this was replaced in total by bitcoins, each bitcoin would be worth around $1 million.
With 150 BTC being mined every hour, that's $150 million per hour being mined, which would mainly be spent on capital repayments on equipment and electricity.
How many nuclear power stations does that electrical power equate to?
How many nuclear power stations does the existing dollar system equate to?
Jump to: