Topic: Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument. - page 5. (Read 5036 times)

there are so many people who say that bitcoin is a disaster for the environment when in fact that is not true at all even though it has a very large impact received by bitcoin where by saying that bitcoin is a disaster for the environment it indirectly makes the price of bitcoin not so stable on the stock market by the existence of these discourses.even though there is no energy generated that can cause pollution so that there is pollution to the environment and we have seen that in the last few years

The hashrate is going to grow 10% from month to month if the current epoch keeps going like this, are they telling me that suddenly they've just installed 600MW of wind turbines just now? I understand some of the things, I understand that you can play with numbers for your own interest but right now they are just bullshiting.


First, the S19XP was announced in 2021, and the first batch just got delivered early this month, now if we add the fact that the S9 was launched and sold in 2016, we have an increase of 5x in 6 Years. Both numbers are current, but doesn't it scream manipulation?
Also, I love their comparison with other industries, construction, gold, and freight, but something is missing from there, the obvious one, but we can't use that anymore because it won't look as nice as it did 4 years ago.  

I admit I have read it diagonally.
But it is always a good resource to dismiss Bitcoin as a polluting technology, when instead is actively pushing for a more efficient use of clean energy.

Bitcoin Mining Is Technology Intensive, 58x+ In Efficiency In 8 Years

But it is always a good resource to dismiss Bitcoin as a polluting technology, when instead is actively pushing for a more efficient use of clean energy.

For some reason, it seems to me that those who simply cannot realize themselves in this industry think so. So, you shouldn't do anything about it at all.

I admit I have read it diagonally.
But it is always a good resource to dismiss Bitcoin as a polluting technology, when instead is actively pushing for a more efficient use of clean energy.

Government have tried to ban crypto currencies but every-time they have failed to do so. Now they have come up with a new excuse that bitcoin is polluting the environment because bitcoin is based on proof of work which consumes a lot of energy for generating bitcoins.

This narrative is going to fail to as this is totally a lame excuse. The factories and industries produces much more waste and consume much more energy as compare to this bitcoin.

Using solar arrays to power a Mining farm looks like an absolute novelty and maybe an overkill, something more like a marketing stunt than a real, economic oriented project.
Time will tell.

Exactly. It's clear that they're not banning it due to humanism or for the sake of the climate change, because they should have also behaved similarly to a gazillion other things. Their intention is to have more control over the people; the environmental disaster argument is just an alibi.

Currently much research has been ongoing on the effective use of renewable energy source for mining and secondly in the case of another solution coming from Exxon Mobil which plan to use waste energy from petroleum resources for use in bitcoin mining is another development that bitcoin has come to solve part of the created problems on energy waste and it hazards on the environment.

Taking the dedicated mining stage at Bitcoin 2022, Blockstream CEO Adam Back announced that his company, in partnership with Jack Dorsey’s Block, Inc., will be leveraging Tesla energy equipment for a $12 million bitcoin mining facility.

“The Tesla Solar PV array and Tesla Megapack will power Blockstream and Block’s open-source, solar and battery-powered Bitcoin mining facility,” according to a slide shared by Back during the presentation. “[The facility is] projected [to produce] 3.8 MW solar renewable power, 30 PH/s hashrate.”

Well, some of the big companies are also thinking about the future, including in the issue of environmental issues of mining.

My hope for now is that miners should be able to switch to looking for energy at a lower cost by utilizing the environmental resources around them, be it sun, water and air/wind, because of course the sustainability of bitcoin's life is in the hands of the miners, 

On October 19, 2021, MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor welcomed the crypto community to review the third-quarter 2021 survey results from the Bitcoin Mining Council’s data review.

In this video we’ve summarized Saylor’s 30-minute segment into 3 minutes, aiming to touch on some of the “need to know” data points from this captivating briefing. We invite you to watch the full-length presentation by visiting the Bitcoin Mining Council’s YouTube page, or by clicking this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPai5uoN2tg&t=0s

I have only gotten up to your post so far in the thread, but I have become motivated to post even if your point has been made by others in the thread dark1234.

In other words, you seem to be making a good point dark1234 in relationship to the incentives that bitcoin creates to be innovative... and for sure there are other posters in this thread making similar points, but it seems to be worthy of emphasis and repetition.

For several years, I have been asserting that I could give few shits about how much energy bitcoin is supposedly causing to be used in the aggregate, because the incentives of bitcoin empower each miner to choose for himself/herself regarding whether and how much to mine bitcoin or to engage in other activities....

So if a miner determines that that there could be ways to make more profits by lowering energy costs, then such miner is going to seek out such lower cost energy - which will likely cause the putting to use of energy that had not been previously used.  Surely, some of the beneficiaries of the lower cost energy are going to become perturbed because the miner would be causing their energy costs to increase.. but still i tis quite likely that benefits outweigh the costs in terms of miners seeking out lower cost energy and thus incentivizing the development and use of lower cost energies... so without intervention, bitcoin already seems to contribute to the causation of decent incentives to both utilize low cost energy and to develop more low cost energy, if possible (or economically justifiable to attempt such ongoing developments of low cost energy).  

So for sure there is a bit of a balancing of interests in terms of both the driving up of low cost energy, but also considerably great likelihood of ongoing development of such low cost usage of energy - which seems to actually be supported by the data (empirical evidence).

Maybe my own punchline is that I could hardly give any ratt's ass regarding the extent to which there are various kinds of clean or dirty energy usages.. because those seem to be side issues in which sometimes bitcoiners or bitcoin miners might end up getting involved if they might get involved in producing energy or selecting between sources of energy.. so in that regard, whether the energy is clean or not does not seem to be central towards whether bitcoin miners might be wanting to purchase energy that might be available in one location versus another.. just confusing regarding blaming bitcoin mining for preexisting situations.. and sure it may well be true that some improvements have been made to the energy grid over the last 50 years so that skies are not as polluted and water is not catching on fire.. so there surely are continued likely ways in which some forms of energy are cleaner than other forms of energy or if some forms of energy need to be coupled with cleaning or filtering technologies to cause them to be less polluting.. if it is truly the case that such forms of energy are more polluting than the benefits that they might otherwise bestow on the energy grid (infrastructure) - which likely varies quite a bit from region to region based on what resources might be naturally available in one area versus another... surely it is less energy (resource) efficient for people to live in a dessert.. or on a flood plain... but they still do.. so sometimes there can be meaningful and reasonable balancing of the varying interests.. which surely is a decent part of the story of bitcoin mining in terms of the individual incentives and whether those incentives might possibly go contrary to the balancing of public concerns.