Topic: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Myths - page 2. (Read 338 times)
I think that high energy consumption is not something that can be denied, but I don't think there's consensus on how much of that electricity comes from clean energy. In many cases I agree with the 'reduce' principle. Reducing the amount of trash, cars, factories, meat and other things make sense to me. However, I don't think this can reasonably apply to electricity. With technological development and accessibility, humanity will consume more and more energy. So we should focus on making it clean and not overusing it when it's absolutely useless (like when the lights are on in every room, but you're actually sitting only in one of them), but not on blaming some things altogether because they require a lot of energy.
Some people are against Bitcoin specifically due to the large amount of energy consumed, but we're going fully digital in all domains anyway and nothing is perfect.
An interesting comparison is how Bitcoin mining energy consumption compares to the consumption of electrical cars:
Electric cars are advertised literally everywhere as eco-friendly vehicles, yet from this perspective, it's not as fun as it sounds. We're saving the environment from the damage done by non-electric vehicles only to replace the damage with the one done by EVs.
The thing is, this is the only way we can have a fair currency that doesn't provide certain categories of the population an advantage. Be it rich, poor, a CEO or a garbage truck guy, you can own and use Bitcoin whenever and however you like.
An interesting comparison is how Bitcoin mining energy consumption compares to the consumption of electrical cars:
Quote
Miners of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies could require up to 140 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2018, about 0.6 percent of the global total, Morgan Stanley analysts led by Nicholas Ashworth wrote in a note Wednesday.
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-10/bitcoin-outshines-electric-cars-as-driver-of-global-power-useQuote
If virtually all passenger cars in Texas were electrified today, the state would need approximately 110 more terawatt-hours of electricity per year — the average annual electricity consumption of 11 million homes.
Source: https://www.inverse.com/article/51486-electric-cars-demand-better-infrastructureElectric cars are advertised literally everywhere as eco-friendly vehicles, yet from this perspective, it's not as fun as it sounds. We're saving the environment from the damage done by non-electric vehicles only to replace the damage with the one done by EVs.
The thing is, this is the only way we can have a fair currency that doesn't provide certain categories of the population an advantage. Be it rich, poor, a CEO or a garbage truck guy, you can own and use Bitcoin whenever and however you like.
See the thing is there are numerous resources but until and unless you are not going to use renewal sources of energy you won't be able to state the fact one as a myth. You should understand that Bitcoins does use energy and it's completely true to say that it causes global warming ... Most of the miners are using electricity as a source of energy. In the future ofcourse this will be fixed...since we won't have to mine more and at the same time it would it only be used for transactions, their confirmations.
Plus we have to realize that people have to start using renewable sources of energy along with the normal electricity to make it work....
One must realize where they are living them go ahead as see what they can use, at some parts it would be wind energy, at some parts it would be solar energy. It's all different.
Plus we have to realize that people have to start using renewable sources of energy along with the normal electricity to make it work....
One must realize where they are living them go ahead as see what they can use, at some parts it would be wind energy, at some parts it would be solar energy. It's all different.
Myth Two: It will only get worse
It is opposite from that, and Bitcoin will probably burn less electricity in the future.
There will be total of 21 million Bitcoins, and every four years there is reward halving, and after the last halving, it is now 6.25 BTC.
In order to burn the same amount of electricity, the price of bitcoin must double in dollar value every four years.
The energy consumption is from total mining rigs are used to mine bitcoin and confirm bitcoin transactions. It depends on network hashrates and not depend on block reward. If the hashrate is the same next 12 years, the energy consumption from all active bitcoin mining rigs will be the same as of now.It is opposite from that, and Bitcoin will probably burn less electricity in the future.
There will be total of 21 million Bitcoins, and every four years there is reward halving, and after the last halving, it is now 6.25 BTC.
In order to burn the same amount of electricity, the price of bitcoin must double in dollar value every four years.
I don't catch their myth why bitcoin price has to double in dollar because of halving and if it happens, the energy consumption will be the same for each 4 years. Their opinion is a myth.
We all heard stories that Bitcoin spends energy like Switzerland, and that all contributes to global warning a lot, but is all that true?
No, it is all myths and twisted repetitions we here from journalists who are just trying to get more attention.
Let's take a look what is reality and what is myth.
First myth: Energy
Most articles use word ''energy'', but only thing that matters for Bitcoin is electricity. For example this Vice article
Energy should not be mixed with electricity, for example we can have several energy sources in our houses including gas.
Does Bitcoin transaction consumes electricity, gas and gasoline?
Then we can see in this BBC article, they say how Bitcoin consumes energy equal of Switzerland.
If you don’t drive a car or you don't have gas at home, energy consumption means only electricity for you, but you can not say the same thing for whole country.
Electricity is only around fifth of the world’s energy, but we don't use any fuels for Bitcoin transactions.
Myth Two: It will only get worse
It is opposite from that, and Bitcoin will probably burn less electricity in the future.
There will be total of 21 million Bitcoins, and every four years there is reward halving, and after the last halving, it is now 6.25 BTC.
In order to burn the same amount of electricity, the price of bitcoin must double in dollar value every four years.
In this article from journal Nature they say that Bitcoin would warm the planet by 2°C by 2033.
They don't explain how exactly in article, but they just assume that more electricity will be burned. If we divide their numbers, and pay the miners, one bitcoin will have to be $160 million in 2033.
Looks like myths are spread by journalists and scientists too.
Myth Three: A Comparison of the Incomparable
''The carbon footprint of a single transaction is the same as 780,650 Visa transactions,'' says this article in The Telegraph.
Problem here is that journalist are comparing average cost of Bitcoin with the marginal cost of Visa.
Should we also take the cost of all world banks, employees, cards, terminals, etc. and divide it by the number of transactions?
Bitcoin transactions may not be as cheap, but monetary system is also not cheap, and in case of Bitcoin we have full control of our money.
Bonus Myth: It’s useless
There is now over 18.5 million mined Bitcoins since 2009. How much energy did it cost us to create those bitcoins?
We can never know exactly, let's take the number from authors calculations and around $200 billion.
It’s a lot of money, but that is only about 2% of the US Federal budget for social security, or 3% of US Federal defense spending, or 4 presidential elections in the US.
No wonder mining is concentrated in places with excess electricity, like oil extraction sites or hydropower plants in China.
We do not want to waste scarce resources but no need for inventing myths and fairy tales around this subject.
Information is used from original trezor blog and Dominik Stroukal:
https://blog.trezor.io/three-myths-about-bitcoins-energy-consumption-ef613a1f3d5
No, it is all myths and twisted repetitions we here from journalists who are just trying to get more attention.
Let's take a look what is reality and what is myth.
First myth: Energy
Most articles use word ''energy'', but only thing that matters for Bitcoin is electricity. For example this Vice article
Energy should not be mixed with electricity, for example we can have several energy sources in our houses including gas.
Does Bitcoin transaction consumes electricity, gas and gasoline?
Then we can see in this BBC article, they say how Bitcoin consumes energy equal of Switzerland.
If you don’t drive a car or you don't have gas at home, energy consumption means only electricity for you, but you can not say the same thing for whole country.
Electricity is only around fifth of the world’s energy, but we don't use any fuels for Bitcoin transactions.
Myth Two: It will only get worse
It is opposite from that, and Bitcoin will probably burn less electricity in the future.
There will be total of 21 million Bitcoins, and every four years there is reward halving, and after the last halving, it is now 6.25 BTC.
In order to burn the same amount of electricity, the price of bitcoin must double in dollar value every four years.
In this article from journal Nature they say that Bitcoin would warm the planet by 2°C by 2033.
They don't explain how exactly in article, but they just assume that more electricity will be burned. If we divide their numbers, and pay the miners, one bitcoin will have to be $160 million in 2033.
Looks like myths are spread by journalists and scientists too.
Myth Three: A Comparison of the Incomparable
''The carbon footprint of a single transaction is the same as 780,650 Visa transactions,'' says this article in The Telegraph.
Problem here is that journalist are comparing average cost of Bitcoin with the marginal cost of Visa.
Should we also take the cost of all world banks, employees, cards, terminals, etc. and divide it by the number of transactions?
Bitcoin transactions may not be as cheap, but monetary system is also not cheap, and in case of Bitcoin we have full control of our money.
Bonus Myth: It’s useless
There is now over 18.5 million mined Bitcoins since 2009. How much energy did it cost us to create those bitcoins?
We can never know exactly, let's take the number from authors calculations and around $200 billion.
It’s a lot of money, but that is only about 2% of the US Federal budget for social security, or 3% of US Federal defense spending, or 4 presidential elections in the US.
No wonder mining is concentrated in places with excess electricity, like oil extraction sites or hydropower plants in China.
We do not want to waste scarce resources but no need for inventing myths and fairy tales around this subject.
Information is used from original trezor blog and Dominik Stroukal:
https://blog.trezor.io/three-myths-about-bitcoins-energy-consumption-ef613a1f3d5
Jump to: