Topic: Bitcoin and global warming - page 7. (Read 3019 times)
by the way, in fact, everything is correctly described by the author. how much energy should be spent on the vital activity of the entire crypto industry and how this can badly affect the ecology
The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century, bitcoin will not speed or slow that changes. Nations around the world are upping their game in the fight against climate change, but what we really need is green energy, or renewable energy. Bitcoin as new technology will be combined with new technologies for renewable energy, many types of renewable energy resources such as wind and solar energy are constantly replenished and will never run out. Energy from sun and thermal water. there are a lot of green energy around us, bitcoin will have to be combined with them. Just to give you info that you didn`t know maybe, Iceland is the only country in the world that obtains 100% of it`s energy from renewable resources, its currently like that, but in future many countries will be there.
I think all the developments and technologies around the world are somehow affecting the mother nature in their own terms. Similarly, Bitcoin mining is. There is need to think out of box how the efficient technology can be used without degrading the mother nature. By adapting and adopting the safe energy consumption methods and reducing the carbon contents we can go long way with anything and can make bitcoin=/= global warming.
Yes, I think that BTC is the great solution to fix this issue. We will cut down less trees and use more online transactions to send money
Instead of putting their entire focus on Bitcoin and global warming impact, the governments should regulate the industries and factories that are puffing smoke for fun. They should not get involved in politics and lobbying and put their time in regulating the laws and regulations.
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 thing global warming is caused by O3, mining bitcoin not producing that kind of waste.
Another thing causing global warming is the heat. The power generator for electricity is not produce heat too much.
The production of 1 BTC is really expensive and in some countries the cost can be even greater. The fact is that mining equipment ensures the stability and security of the entire Bitcoin network. I think that for example the banking sector, Visa/Mastercard service costs more than Bitcoin's network service and involves more people than Bitcoin.
Yeah, bitcoin mining requires very large electrical energy. One of the impacts of the magnitude of electrical energy is global warming. Indeed, the massive and continuous use of energy is very bad, especially for the defense of our earth. But global warming is not solely the result of bitcoin mining. A lot of factories that operate with electricity are also quite large and not environmentally friendly. Not to mention the use of non-environmentally friendly electricity which is done in a closed manner. Indeed as connoisseurs of energy we must be wise in using energy that we can save from ourselves. So it's not only the miners who are wrong but our role is also in maintaining energy.
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.
I think mining cryptocurrency activity is still not comparable with carbon monoxide gas from motor vehicles, greenhouse effect, forest destruction, industrial electricity usage etc.
Bitcoin transaction and mining consumes a lot of computing power and electricity. Therefore depending on how the energy used to power the computers are derived, it could contribute to global warming.
Thus when it involves the elimination of green house gases.
Thus when it involves the elimination of green house gases.
Well that is base on your assumption bit let me ask this fundamental question have you try to take into consideration the impact of the external forceyon bitcoin mining such as the government policies that may make mining almost impossible and also the high cost of mining activities and how high electricity billing may be in the host region, so trying to compensate the active miner may be I drop in an ocean.
As far as i know Banking system has a worst impact to the enviroment than Bitcoin
Yes and there are a lot of bigger problems than just bitcoin so we cannot speculate that this has the biggest impact on our coin (global warming). 
Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency with secret computer online currency that has no physical form as fiat currency . We have to buy Bitcoin from exchanges online or by mining . Cryptocurrency is said to becoming a major contributor to the man made global warming .There are predictions that Bitcoin consumes more electric current for mining Bitcoin the massive use of energy conception leads to global warming . Now Bitcoin miners says that Bitcoin mining causes more electric consuming that have to lead to global warming .
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.
The cost of mining electricity is far less than the cost of printing banknote. 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.
in some countries crypto money mining is growing astronomically and electricity consumption is increasing. governments and electricity producers should focus more on this issue.
the cryptocurrency website Digiconomics said that worldwide bitcoin mining was using more electricity than Serbia. The country. Writing for Grist, Eric Holthaus calculated that by July 2019, the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network—remember BitTorrent? Like that—would require more electricity than all of the United States. And by November of 2020, it’d use more electricity than the entire world does today.
It means Bitcoin emits the equivalent of 17.7 million tons of carbon dioxide every year.
It means Bitcoin emits the equivalent of 17.7 million tons of carbon dioxide every year.
Electricity is very vital as far as bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining is concern. Bitcoin mining consumes a lot of energy which in one way or the other adversely affect our environment and increases tariff too. Energy are force to be produced to meet the demand of high energy consumption by the mining machines. It is good the the 4new project has come which aim at solving this energy crisis in crypto mining and the hazard we are exposed to during energy production.
I don't think Bitcoin is the only factor in global warming, but it is definitely one of the most significant factors contributing to it.
I think bitcoin is not responsible for global warming. I think the reason why and the responsible for global warming all factory and because the big volume of public vehicles.
Come on! That sounds ridiculous! What do you mean Bitcoin can consume more energy and do more harm to the nature than coal mining, oil refineries, landfills and other non-btc-related stuff which probably far outweighs the potential damage Bitcoin might be doing to nature?
Sounds prejudiced.
But don't get me wrong, I do know it has an adverse effect on Nature. Just don't want to exaggerate and shift the responsibility onto bitcoin alone. I believe all people MUST think more carefully about the environment.
Sounds prejudiced.
But don't get me wrong, I do know it has an adverse effect on Nature. Just don't want to exaggerate and shift the responsibility onto bitcoin alone. I believe all people MUST think more carefully about the environment.
Jump to: