Topic: Bitcoin and Greenpeace - page 2. (Read 4300 times)

Okay, so State Law. I agree with you.

I'm not a fan of Greenpeace either. They are like libertarians. They live in some world where there is Natural Law (e.g. Nuclear power is bad because it is against nature). In my opinion, Nuclear (expected death rate low; variance extremely high) much better than Coal (expected death rate high; variance very low).

Mostly the body of Common Law surrounding the sanctity of private property; you know like breaking and entering, defacing buildings, vandalism, denying right of entry ... have you not noticed Greenpeace was doing these things?

By 'break the law', Are you referring to Natural Law or State Law?

Greenpeace lie, deceive, spread misinformation and routinely recruit vulnerable, malleable youth who don't know better to break the law. Why would anybody want to associate with them these days is beyond me.

This is true. Nuclear power's benefit of causing less death and releasing less radiation than coal per watt is only going to improve as the newer generation of plants replace the old ones.

They are doing fine with archaic nuclear technology. Imagine what they could do with a "modern" (developed in the 1970s) reactor design like LFTR.

This.

Most people don't know that coal mining/burning releases far more radiation per watt of power into the air than nuclear power does. A little thing called radon gas getting released from the coal.

Coal mining also kills more people per watt of power than nuclear power does.

This is taking into account all of the accidents too which are reducing in number and severity with newer reactors.

France is doing a great job producing over 80% of their power with nuclear and they are doing great.

Just goes to show how much damage you can cause mixing good intentions with ignorance.

I consider myself an environmentalist and I do not like GreenPeace.  They have managed to block/slow down and even work to close nuclear plants all over the world.  In exchange we get more coal plants.  Nice going GreenPleace. 

Greenpeace (at least in Poland) does nothing but blocks valuable investments(of course they "change their mind" if the investor makes donation) and makes anti-nuclear propaganda.

I am usually right, you should try it some day

I would explain my logic, but I doubt a guy with a hundred ignores or so would understand or want to.

Are you going to be running the network. Why does what you think 'should' happen have any relevance to what will happen?

Once the block reward is gone, or even just lowered short-term, mining should go towards a minimum as people choose as low fees as they can while maintaining speed and security on the network.

Bitcoin is far from a failed technology.

While I think it would be good to see political groups become more open minded to Bitcoin groups like Greenpeace make me want to repeatedly bash my head in with a blunt object.

Long-run Electricity usage depends on the ratio of electricity use to hardware costs. Decreasing this ratio saves electricity (though it does not affect waste overall). You are just replace wasteful electiricty use with wasteful R&D and hardware production. PoW will remain a complete waste regardless of whether that waste occurs via electricity or otherwise.

Nevertheless, you are wrong to suggest that electricity savings are only short-term.

A Minirig SC supposedly yields 50 Mhash/s per $ and 1000 Mhash per joule. The ratio is 200 Joules/s per $ of capital expenditure.

A 5970 yields 1.67 Mhash/s per $ and 2.2 Mhash per joule. The ratio is 1.3 Joules/s per $ of capital expenditure.

As you can see the minirig supposedly has made tremendous progress reducing electricity use, but much less progress in reducing capital costs.

This means that ASIC technology is biased towards energy saving. The long-run competitive equilibrium will feature a quite large reduction in direct electricity use via mining. Perhaps 10-fold.
By contrast, capital expenditure will increase dramatically. This will help to price small miners out of the market. Purchase a mini-rig if they exist, or go home.

I'm too lazy to do all the math at the moment. It is hard to find motivation in a failed technology. Question me further if you want to see exact calculations.


Show math supporting your claim. Currently, bitcoin is orders of magnitude more wasteful than other payment technologies. Here is a reference: http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=can%20we%20afford%20proof%20of%20work&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweis2012.econinfosec.org%2Fpresentation%2FBreuker_presentation_WEIS2012.pdf&ei=ooWwUMzuL8PorAf7tIHYCg&usg=AFQjCNHVP4mza5SJp6E3amVUszxrFR9A2Q. Future circumstances are speculative.

1. Competition will always drive miners to dissipate a large fraction of the block reward in electricity. Efficiency gains are only short term.
2. Bitcoin is more energy efficient than cash, vaults and armored cars driving around everywhere.

The challenge is in getting past how Bitcoin mining consumes a fair amount of electricity.  Maybe with the efficiency of ASIC this will temper that argument for a while.

Whatever your feelings are for Greenpeace, I think most would agree these folks have chutzpah...my guess is that they would support Bitcoin. Anyone a member? Has Bitpay been in touch?