Topic: concern for bitcoin and the environment (Read 7881 times)

The energy is used for a good purpose. What about all the parasites who do nothing but steal from the market called the government how much energy they use and don't pay for just steal?

Interesting topic discussion. Not sure this is the best place for it, but whatever.

Kind of curious though about something. What about the rate at which we can make electronic equipment? There must be some sort of supply limit on the amount of precious metals available used in electronic manufacturing, right? I mean I know we can recycle used parts, but...well, I just don't know enough about it I guess lol

A coal dragline peaks at 21,575 kW each time it scoops.   (Marion 8750).

That's over 50 times the entire bitcoin network for a single piece of machinery.

The Handicap Principle is an idea from biology that shows cooperation is impossible without sacrifice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

This principle explains why proof-of-work works for Bitcoin and why some sort of expense is necessary.
http://themisescircle.org/blog/2013/06/24/the-proof-of-work-concept/

The idea that Bitcoin should work costlessly is an example of the Nirvana fallacy.

I am did not read through previous posts. I am sure that was stated above. There is no danger in BTC for Ecology. Otherwise - BTC will lead to more carefull spending, and through it - to more careful approach to remaining resources. Only by that, BTC can do more for mother nature, than  over 9000 El Gor`s.
Cheers - enjoy the most ecology safe currency in the world.

its green compared with any manufacturing or transport industry

an interesting comment is that shipping fumes are one of the biggest polluters for transport but you never hear about it. we could all crush our cars and ride bikes and a it would equate the the amount of ship pollution released in one day. (or something like that, it gross, and they burn the dirtiest shit cheap ass fuel making it worse)

This last week on NatGeo (tv) I watched a show called "Explorer: Secret History Of Gold".  (It's on again Tuesday , July 5).

In this show, one of the sub-stories was about a man in South America who was mining gold illegally in the rainforest.  He and other illegal miners had basically destroyed and polluted vast areas of the rainforest in search of gold.  What was there instead of trees were polluted piles of dirt.

I think the environmental impact of BTC pales in comparison to that.

It was a good show, I recommend it to anyone with an interest in money.

Are you going to be using just the text in green, or all of the text in that reply?

Here's my concern: The concept of a block chain where each block is protected with a hash isn't what gets people hung up.  The head scratcher to many is why it takes thousands of miners to come up with that one hash that is needed for the next block.  The answer to that should be in the response for this waste of energy myth.

Here's my attempt to answer:
To ensure that transaction blocks are produced at specific target rate a technique known as a proof of work system was chosen.  Miners perform work and as more capacity comes online the blocks are produced at a faster rate.  An adjustment is made periodically such that the rate blocks are produce returns to the specified rate.  There simply isn't a better solution that allows a decentralized network to generate blocks at a target rate without  any cheating.

willmoss and forever-d are onto something that most everyone has missed.

As I see it, the product of the computations is a "super-signature" on the block chain.  A block solution carries the hashing community's endorsement of the transaction history and attests to its completeness.  This is what protects receivers from double spends.  Far from being wasteful or frivolous, this resource is essential to the currency's usefulness.  Those hash values that start with all those zeroes function like a digital signature on email, but rather than a person or bank, it is the Bitcoin hashing community whose approval they demonstrate.

Bitcoin provides very little economic incentive to expend energy that would otherwise be usable.  It provides plenty of incentive to salvage energy that would go to waste if not for Bitcoin.  If someone is paying for electricity to mine bitcoins, something is wrong.  Solar panels fit the model at sunny times when nobody but Bitcoin needs their output.

The electricity spent in hashing is not wasted. It creates a product of value to the Bitcoin economy. The product is a supersignature on the complete list of transactions to date (the Block chain). This supersignature attesting to the chain's completeness is Bitcoin's defense against double spending.

Many sources of energy vary in their availability in ways that do not match the variations in demand. The law of supply and demand should require Bitcoin to soak up a lot of energy that is currently "wasted" before it makes a big dent in the otherwise usable energy supply. [Perhaps cite estimates of the break-even point for mining profitability that imply near-zero-cost electricity.]

I plan to replace the reply at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_mining_is_a_waste_of_energy_and_harmful_for_ecology with the above text, or a revision thereof if comments so warrant...

Or to restate an idea of my own from a few months back, someone will make a heat trace cable for water lines that has bitcoin asics in a strip.

Not only in places with an abundance of energy, also at times with an abundance of energy.

Making energy is the easy part, getting the energy to the place where it is needed at the time it is needed is what makes most alternative energy sources uncompetitive compared to oil.

The nice thing about Bitcoin is that you can take generation to where and when the energy is being made rather than the other way around. There are very few applications like that.

Therefore, market forces will ensure that Bitcoin generation makes use of energy that few other applications can use. In many cases, it will be energy that would have gone to waste anyhow, for example, surplus output from wind farms during very windy nights.

Source? According to this, photovoltaics are one of the least competitive sources of energy.

If major corporate mining of bitcoins were to develop in Iceland, something that I consider likely if Bitcoin ever hits anything close to mainstream, as well as something that is likely already happening; this would be economicly equivalent to importing energy from Iceland.

Maybe you are just generalizing, maybe not. I don't live in California, nor have I ever faced an energy crisis. Energy is super cheap because we burn coal and the US as a whole does not charge the true cost of burning coal in its energy expenses. Thus, we have super cheap electricity but will not be able to pay for the end results of climate damage.

You seem to miss the point. It is not the distribution of energy, it is the USE of energy that is the issue.

How would you suggest we import energy from Iceland? Currently, all energy imports are in the form of oil. There must be a storage mechanism or a potential/thermal difference in order to transfer energy.

The world has an energy crisis because we of the effects it is having on the environment, not necessarily due to shortages.

Rofl.

IMO, its not like theres a shortage of energy, just in certain countries.

For example, Iceland is brimming with energy, has loads of hot springs and stuff, and way too much electricity. Similarly Iran (apparently) because of all the oil they burn. Yet California can't get enough.

I think the problem is not a lack of energy but distribution of it.

So to that point, I guess Bitcoin miners should be concentrated in places with an abundance of energy. And I suppose the free market forces will make sure that this happens.

BTW, as a side note I think that the solution to the 'energy crisis' is better infrastructure, so that we can have say a country like Iceland exporting its energy to say the US.

That energy can then be used in different forms, eg. Hydrogen for cars, Electricity for houses, etc. etc.

Thus replacing oil and solving the world's energy crisis. Simple, lol

I very strongly disagree. However, I feel that this discussion is outside the scope of my original post so I will not continue to debate environment. If you want, we can create a thread elsewhere on the boards to address this or we can talk in private messages.

Those questions are irrelevent.  None of us have control over how the power is produced or it's effects are mitigated, regardless of the system we are talking about. 
It's also a bold-faced lie.  Solar tech would have to be less than free to compete with coal at the present time, because solar requires vast expanses of real estate to produce on any scale.  I would wager that less than 0.01% of the population has the real estate to produce their own power consumption in this manner even if the tech were 100% efficient.  Currently an efficiency rate of 20% is great.
Don't forget to include the energy costs and environmental impact of the manufacturing of those panels before you decide that solar is a good environmental choice.

I like that point.


I hope this is just a case of sarcasm not being conveyed through the internet and not a rude comment. Sure, its nothing compared to global energy consumption, but everything needs to be scrutinized no matter the size. Thats what any real engineer will tell you.


Good calculation. We are all hoping/expecting the value of bitcoins to increase, so that cap will increase proportionally. I need to learn more about the "fee" system so that I can do some calculations for when fee mining begins to dominate regular mining. This is difficult to speculate because computation and energy technologies will not be the same that far in the future.

That seems to be the mindset of most engineers or people in general. In my opinion, we should predict problems and solve them before their scale makes solutions expensive and complex.



I really like that miner setup! =). I'd like to learn more about the ArtForz ASIC. Is it just on paper right now or is he planning a production run?



I suppose that is becoming the common theme in this thread. However, I just want some numbers to back up the feeling. I don't know that it is better or worse. I just want to see and know.


Climate change and pollution come to mind. Solar is pretty clean, especially heat capture. However, burning fossil fuels does not only release lots of pollution, but it increases greenhouse gases. Not sure how big of an argument this may become. I know agriculture and farming is a HUGE contributor to greenhouse gases. Its a population issue. We all want to use energy and we are generally using stored energy rather than renewable energy. Fossil fuels are an efficient storage of millions of years of sun energy. It will run out however, but in the mean time we are releasing millions of years of carbon storage in a relatively short time span. We will face water shortages, climate shifts, increased food prices, etc. I am not sure where you live, but in my country fossil fuels dominate electricity production.
Your analogy is great. There is even more to consider however. How is the electricity being produced? Does it have emissions? Do they offset cutting down farmed trees for paper? There is a lot to consider for sure.

Solar does pretty well where I am from. In fact, I recently saw reports that solar is just about on the edge with being competitive with coal. Thats a pretty huge development. The only problem is that I am going to be moving (just graduated). I'll be going to grad school at CMU and I am not sure how much sun I'll be seeing in Pittsburgh. For me, I am concerned more with unseen environmental costs that are not factored into the current price of energy. If I use solar panels, I would hope to combat that.

I'll add your poll option.

Add human babies to your list. =P. Otherwise, very constructive comment there.

I think we should club all baby seals so they stop consuming energy and destroying the environment.

Not if you consider the amount of energy it takes to run other monetary systems.  Just because your cash doesn't require energy to use, doesn't mean that it didn't take energy to create.  It took quite a bit, and considering the network of banks and institutions that exist to support the electronic flow of those same notes, the energy costs of the US FRN are astronomical compared to Bitcoin.

In some ways it's comparable to the energy required to dry your hands in a public bathroom.  Which takes more energy, the paper towel or the hot air blowdryer?  The answer is counter-intuitive, because we see the energy that the dryer uses; but we tend to overlook the energy required to 1) grow the trees, 2) harvest the trees, 3) produce the paper, 4) ship the rolls of paper towels, 5) and repeatedly replace the rolls as they empty.

The hot air blowdryer is orders of magnitude more energy efficient than a paper towel dispensory, as long as the dryer itself is reliable.

Good plan

Probably not so good of a plan; unless you live in a desert or otherwise want the solar panels for some other reason.  I've looked into this for my own home, and the panels never make their own cost of production back within their life expectancy.  And only make sense in remote conditions. or if you expect that the power grid will fail sometime within your lifetime.


Please add, "Bitcoin mining is not energy intensive compared to alternatives" to your poll, please.