Topic: Bitcoin and global warming - page 2. (Read 3019 times)
Why are news outlets so hung up on blaming global warming to bitcoin mining? There are a lot of factors contributing to climate change, particularly those that burn fossil fuels. Why blame bitcoin mining? Pretty sure they're doing this just to keep people out of bitcoin and cryptocurrency.
I think that production of cryptocurrency and thermal energy which is allocated at the same time process - it very small part from all industrial processes and factories which influence much worse a global warming, than, for example, mining. I want to say as well that I have the friend who invented in his private house the system of heating which works from mining equipment. In such a manner he heats house and engages in production of cryptocurrency! 
Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.
If bitcoin will be successful, this will lessen the production of paper bills, hence lower the polution from factories and improve our environment. However, for us to produce cryptocurrencies, we need to mine them. So I guess this will still be the same.
You can link global worming to almost anything from water petrifaction plants to web servers - why only BTC to blame?
I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income. More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income. More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.
I have never thought about this problem. I agree that mining requires high energy consumption. Some of my friends that are mining bitcoins, heat with produced energy the whole house at winter. Basically, they increased electricity consumption but they are saving energy on heating at winter.
If mining has not become the main cause of ecological catastrophe and global warming, it contributes to its aggravation. It is clear that no one will refuse to extract coins, but you must definitely think of a way to get energy resources in an environmentally friendly manner.
The relationship between bitcoin and global warming is available in natural resources. Using bitcoin will reduce the felling of trees in the forest which has an impact on the environment, namely preventing flooding, because traditional money is very wasteful of paper and the raw material for paper is wood.
digging bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, which is also a cause for the warming of the Earth. But now, with the advancement of science and technology, alternative energy has been used to reduce energy consumption and costs, such as using solar cells.
I dont think bitcoin have global warming issue. Bitcoin only using not more than 1% than total capacity. Beside that, bitcoin miner can use alternative energy that much more lower cost.
don't make Bitcoin a suspect, Bitcoin has nothing intercourse with global warming and I don't think mining affects air much, which makes global warming is human. I've seen how forest fires for open land and factory fumes and motorized vehicles pollute the air. hopefully, human activities that make the air dirtier can be reduced.
If mining has not become the main cause of ecological catastrophe and global warming, it contributes to its aggravation. It is clear that no one will refuse to extract coins, but you must definitely think of a way to get energy resources in an environmentally friendly manner.
Bitcoin is real, and the most commonly called causes of global warming are not. This question has long been studied and revealed that the average temperature on the planet has repeatedly significantly exceeded current figures, and at that time when electricity and industry were not even suspected. Now, many use the contrived problem to attract attention.
Indeed, one of the disadvantages of cryptocurrency is the high consumption of energy resources for mining coins. The question will remain unresolved until a way is found to produce a huge amount of electricity without harming the environment.
1. I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities.
....
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities.
....
1. Not even close. If you compare bitcoin mining to the electric consumption for the biggest malls in China you will be amazed how puny the numbers behind bitcoin mining are. If you're going to compare the pollution and add naval shipment in the equation you will find out that bitcoin is the LAST of our problems.
...
1. If this is the case, still we need to make bitcoin green. To help the earth. Or are we, "they're bigger sue them first".
I agree with the usage of more greener electricity sources like wind, water, and sun. We should take part of the responsibility because we live on the same earth.
Global warming is already been a problem ever before Bitcoin invention. Those who make it a big deal are those people who are against it and paid the mainstream media to make it sensational.
many people implement POS for this, but still I believe that this method does not allow the cryptocurrency to be unique and difficult to produce, so the waste of electricity is one of the disadvantages of cryptocurrencies
Bitcoin mining operations use tons of power, and power is expensive. In China, power is inexpensive because it is mainly based on coal-fired power plants, so this is where the majority of miners have set up shop.
Its true that Proof of Work coin need more electricity than Proof of Stake. But its creating transparancy in data transaction and its much secure on the data. Right now, we are living in the world with many innovation, i am believe energy alternative that more friendly to environment can used for bitcoin mining because its much cheaper and saving a lot cost
Yes. Bitcoin is a big electronic currency. It has a huge market capitalization. There are many people who invest in bitcoin. The bitcoin price peaked at $ 20,000. It makes the electronic money market so vibrant. Many companies, large corporations invest in bitcoin.
The biggest question about the Bitcoin mining is: is it worth it i believe.. The spending the electricity for the mining means spending the worlds sources? And the usage raises every new day.. Is it bad or is is good for the earth? There would be many question about that. I believe that the mining is not so necessary i todays world. I have read news about it and it says: When you compared the yearly electricity usage to countries like the Czech Republic, the Bitcoin network uses 102.3 percent of the entire electricity consumed by the country per year..
You can read the full article here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-minings-electricity-bill-is-it-worth-it
You can read the full article here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-minings-electricity-bill-is-it-worth-it
A passion for cryptocurrencies goes across the global (in any case, European) trend in energy savings and the fight against "global warming." The fruits of the efforts that over the past decades have been spent on more efficient and environmentally friendly energy, will be “eaten away” by mining mining cryptocurrency in the coming years. This means that it is necessary either to increase the cost of energy by several times, which will hit the real economy and prices for all goods, or significantly increase the energy consumption of humanity. Most likely, both at once. Against this background, any struggle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, etc. - a cheap nonsense. The projections of global warming (and global flooding), which do not take into account the explosive growth of mining, are significantly underestimated. That is, even if the earlier panic about “global warming” was an exaggeration and a fake, then with the rise of “cryptoeconomics” it can really begin.
Jump to: