Topic: Can actually Bitcoin be good for the environment? - page 5. (Read 3221 times)
Yes why not I see bitcoin changed to solar powered so the future is quit bright side let's it happen
Bitcoin mining completely depends on electricity. And we can produce the electricity with the use of natural resources. So it's completely fine. Bitcoin mining doesn't affect the environment.
if this comparison is the same in my opinion, even though I agree more that saying bitcoin is more profitable and more energy efficient, because in my opinion bitcoin does not need to take place, infrastructure, facilities and accommodation for employees who all come from nature and are very detrimental in long-term
Bitcoin is probably never going to be GOOD for the environment, but it can be better than the VISA system which is currently the gold standard. We need to see a switch from POW to POS to see less of the energy burden though, as right now using 1% of the worlds energy supply (dubious I know) is certainly not contributing towards a stable environment.
can it or not or not. it all depends on the user maybe if it is used as a transaction and investment tool that can help people in doing business of course it will have a good impact on the economy while with a stable economy it will also have a good impact on the environment. and vice versa if bitcoin is used in negative matters such as funding terrorism and money laundering, it will have a negative impact on the environment
I don't know why many people say bitcoin is not good currency. I think bitcoin now digital currency. It's popularity increase day by day. Bitcoin now good for environment
I don't think that is the word or term to be used there. Environment are everything around us might be living or a non living thing, I guess the word really here is not environment but the economy of a country. Currency is not really helpful in our environment since it is just a piece of metal and paper given a value by the government. It is helpful as an investment but not in the environment.
A lot has been said about mining and about the electricity consumption of the activities related to bitcoin mining. However, I have thought of the alternatives and how other systems produce not just energy waste, but also plenty of useless work and "human waste".
To have a network that can ensure the completeness of transactions, the global accessibility and all the features that bitcoins, and many alts, have at the moment, would probable produce a huge carbon footprint. Just think of the VISA system or the banking system... the amount of people working on it, the waste of commuting to works, the infrastructure.
Thinking of all that, would you still say Bitcoin is bad for the environment?
No, in the beginning bitcoin had to be produced from various processes that needed energy and that could make bitcoin have a price value. the result is that now bitcoin has a price that was not predicted 9 years ago. bitcoin is at a very good performance and when compared to paper money bitcoin has things that are much more environmentally friendly. we talk about the future and it's proven that bitcoin has the capability as a digital financial system that is trusted by many people. To have a network that can ensure the completeness of transactions, the global accessibility and all the features that bitcoins, and many alts, have at the moment, would probable produce a huge carbon footprint. Just think of the VISA system or the banking system... the amount of people working on it, the waste of commuting to works, the infrastructure.
Thinking of all that, would you still say Bitcoin is bad for the environment?
I think maybe it can, because bitcoin is money online and can be an asset to invest. And there is no paper model that makes the environment not good.
bitcoin is very good for the environment, and there is no pollution, but for noise in mining it must also be completely closed so there is no noise pollution.not only noise pollution but also mining wastes alot of electricity or energy , so imo bitcoin is not good for the environment . bitcoin might be only good for the economy of the country because it is helpful for making our live more easier in terms of payment purposes , however altcoins are the ones that is being used for payments due to thier low fees and faster processing . altcoins are mostly suitable for investing or trading because they are more cheaper and can be boughtable as when compared to bitcoins , so altcoins must also take the credit .
A lot has been said about mining and about the electricity consumption of the activities related to bitcoin mining. However, I have thought of the alternatives and how other systems produce not just energy waste, but also plenty of useless work and "human waste".
To have a network that can ensure the completeness of transactions, the global accessibility and all the features that bitcoins, and many alts, have at the moment, would probable produce a huge carbon footprint. Just think of the VISA system or the banking system... the amount of people working on it, the waste of commuting to works, the infrastructure.
Thinking of all that, would you still say Bitcoin is bad for the environment?
I think, of course, it can be useful for the environment, because it is financially, it can manifest itself as a good kind of initiative, and something like that, the coin is getting closer to the management. To have a network that can ensure the completeness of transactions, the global accessibility and all the features that bitcoins, and many alts, have at the moment, would probable produce a huge carbon footprint. Just think of the VISA system or the banking system... the amount of people working on it, the waste of commuting to works, the infrastructure.
Thinking of all that, would you still say Bitcoin is bad for the environment?
I think maybe it can, because bitcoin is money online and can be an asset to invest. And there is no paper model that makes the environment not good.
bitcoin is very good for the environment, and there is no pollution, but for noise in mining it must also be completely closed so there is no noise pollution.
It is true that perhaps the environmental factor was not taken into account when designing the creation of bitcoin.In my own opinion it can be good also in the future if all people will use digital currency like bitcoin.
Of course there are several alternatives that can help reduce the carbon footprint generated by bitcoin, although compared to the pollution produced by industries of similar value, bitcoin seems to be little harmful to the environment. It is true that perhaps the environmental factor was not taken into account when designing the creation of bitcoin, but it is also undeniable that bitcoin is in the process of decay and new altcoins less energy consumers will take its place.
Are not. I think that bitcoin is bad for the environment. Exploitation, bitcoin trading has consumed a large amount of electricity in the world. The bitcoin extraction causes the temperature to heat up.
electricity is not a bad resource, although it is not good for the environment but the influence of electricity is very helpful for anything, after all there will be new discoveries of how to make electricity environmentally friendly so that when you use electricity to access bitcoin, it won't be bad for the environment It's an interesting question because it has many sides and opinions. I think apart from mining (because of usage of electricity) BTC can really help people with solving environmental and social problems.
I think bitcoin is invironment friendly because it doesn't involves garbage, pollution or any cases that can be destroyed to our nature. What bitcoin industry mostly involve is true internet and online works which are invironment friendly to every people who are willing to dealt with.
Bitcoin can be net positive for the environment. Banks are much worse, for a lot of reasons.
Here is my reply from a similar topic, the question was if bitcoin uses too much energy.
You are dead wrong. It does matter a lot. Doesnt matter, who pays it - in production cost is too high, its pointless to produce it (once pump&dump is over) and it will be abandoned.
If the price decreases, it won't become pointless to mine. All miners have a different cost base. Miners whose cost of electricity is very high will stop mining. The difficulty of finding blocks will adjust (decrease) and life will go on. Variations in price will definitely not decide the future of Bitcoin as a currency and as a network.
You dont get it, because You think in short term. Halvening lessens reason to do mining exponentially. After 2 halvenings from now on, mining would become pointless EVERYWHERE in world. They also cant hide the cost of mining into transaction fees any further, which are already about 5 times higher, than average stock exchange rates.
By the way: if BTC really became a money, it would happen even faster. But dont worry, it wont... so You from technical point of view You have few years of pump and dumping left. I doubt it goes for economical point of view too tho.
Well, none of you are quite right.
While it matters how much electricity is used, bitcoin is a net positive for our electrical grid, using energy that would largely be wasted.
If the electricity is produced by conventional and dirty means (coal and gas fired plants, nuclear) then we're always overproducing (because we can't just open up a half factory, and we always have to overbuild for population and energy usage growth)
The electricity will most likely be generated anyway, so we might as well use it.
If a lot of people start using a lot of electricity, prices are going to go up, bitcoin mining farms are not essential so they will shut off and people around the world, with cheap electricity are going to ramp up their hashrate.
If the electricity is green, bitcoin is actually subsidizing green energy (an argument Andreas Antonopoulos has made). The infrastructure to either store or transport the electricity away is usually beyond the budget of alternative energy.
The solar panel is going to produce anyway, whether you can store it or transfer it away or not. And if you can't store it or sell it, bitcoin gives you another option to make money with it.
This also applies to homeowners who aren't allowed to sell their electricity.
Therefore bitcoin subsidizes green electricity.
As Andreas Antonopoulos put it "So you're telling me we've been running a green-coin all along?"
Finally there are plenty of reasons to mine after the mining reward from new coins falls to practically 0, the mining fees and also just to keep the network secure. We are all stakeholders after all.
The less mining pools, the more you get out of those transaction fees. If bitcoin becomes huge, the reward may be even bigger than it now is (in terms of real world value rather than bitcoin (purchase power)).
Here is my reply from a similar topic, the question was if bitcoin uses too much energy.
No matter how much energy is used for Bitcoin miners, the electricity bill will still be paid by the miners to the state, and there is nothing wrong with this. this news is really exaggerated by some people, because if compared to factories, Bitcoin mining is not comparable, factories use more energy but people never realize that, I think some people want to make Bitcoin look bad.
You are dead wrong. It does matter a lot. Doesnt matter, who pays it - in production cost is too high, its pointless to produce it (once pump&dump is over) and it will be abandoned.
If the price decreases, it won't become pointless to mine. All miners have a different cost base. Miners whose cost of electricity is very high will stop mining. The difficulty of finding blocks will adjust (decrease) and life will go on. Variations in price will definitely not decide the future of Bitcoin as a currency and as a network.
You dont get it, because You think in short term. Halvening lessens reason to do mining exponentially. After 2 halvenings from now on, mining would become pointless EVERYWHERE in world. They also cant hide the cost of mining into transaction fees any further, which are already about 5 times higher, than average stock exchange rates.
By the way: if BTC really became a money, it would happen even faster. But dont worry, it wont... so You from technical point of view You have few years of pump and dumping left. I doubt it goes for economical point of view too tho.
Well, none of you are quite right.
While it matters how much electricity is used, bitcoin is a net positive for our electrical grid, using energy that would largely be wasted.
If the electricity is produced by conventional and dirty means (coal and gas fired plants, nuclear) then we're always overproducing (because we can't just open up a half factory, and we always have to overbuild for population and energy usage growth)
The electricity will most likely be generated anyway, so we might as well use it.
If a lot of people start using a lot of electricity, prices are going to go up, bitcoin mining farms are not essential so they will shut off and people around the world, with cheap electricity are going to ramp up their hashrate.
If the electricity is green, bitcoin is actually subsidizing green energy (an argument Andreas Antonopoulos has made). The infrastructure to either store or transport the electricity away is usually beyond the budget of alternative energy.
The solar panel is going to produce anyway, whether you can store it or transfer it away or not. And if you can't store it or sell it, bitcoin gives you another option to make money with it.
This also applies to homeowners who aren't allowed to sell their electricity.
Therefore bitcoin subsidizes green electricity.
As Andreas Antonopoulos put it "So you're telling me we've been running a green-coin all along?"
Finally there are plenty of reasons to mine after the mining reward from new coins falls to practically 0, the mining fees and also just to keep the network secure. We are all stakeholders after all.
The less mining pools, the more you get out of those transaction fees. If bitcoin becomes huge, the reward may be even bigger than it now is (in terms of real world value rather than bitcoin (purchase power)).
Many people are worried about that but one thing that you need to consider is that technically everything is bad for the environment, every single industry in the world is bad for it, what we really need to ask ourselves is if bitcoin is worth the degradation of the environment? And taking into account that bitcoin is the best currency in the entire world I'll say that yes it is worth it.
It's an interesting question because it has many sides and opinions. I think apart from mining (because of usage of electricity) BTC can really help people with solving environmental and social problems.
Yes, it can be ascertained that Bitcoin is good for the environment. It does not have an adverse effect on the environment. Hopefully providing electricity for mining Bitcoin has several effects on the environment.
Can not the current banking system use more electricity than Bitcoin. Proof of work does not necessarily mean "wasted" electricity - important for security - but does not pretend electricity is not used. Miners are increasingly adopting alternative energy sources to exploit to limit the environmental impact of bitcoins. Like mining and other sources of energy generate radiation.
Bitcoin can affect the environment in the sense that it need to use so much energy when you are mining Bitcoin. In my own opinion it can be good also in the future if all people will use digital currency like bitcoin instead of cash.
Jump to: