Topic: Economists say each BTC transaction causes 272g of waste (Read 428 times)

They will, when their bosses or people who pay them their salaries finally get behind Bitcoin,,, and I say finally because there is no other option but to accept. You can fight it but you cannot win something that cannot be killed.

We only have to look and ask JP Morgan bank employees or even Nasdaq how quickly things changed and how they also had to change their tune

In fairness to the media they went in to overdrive against the bankers when the financial world came crashing down in 2008 resulting in Lehman Brothers collapsing. There was a clear and open anti-financial institute agenda all over the media but sadly it did not last long enough. A stunning £90 billion worth of value in listed UK companies was lost in one day during the height of the collapse and the UK bailout to its banks was around £500 billion from tax payers money which included buying a huge stake in RBS which they sold later.

We hardly ever see or read anything in the media nowadays about exactly what happened in previous crashes that were attributed to the recklessness of the banking sector.

Keeping that aside, you are spot on about the Bitcoin article in The Guardian, it is poor journalism in general but any large media corporation such as athe BBC news should know better than to regurgitate the same highly debatable information.

Of course not. The media, banks, Wall Street, etc., are all owned by people who have little to gain and a lot to lose from bitcoin's growing dominance. They will never portray it in a good light.

Reporting stuff like this without any investigation is pretty poor journalism, though. You expect it from all the trash that passes as crypto "news" sites, but you expect better from corporations like the BBC. It is an article funded by a bank and based on assumptions with no hard data. It is the equivalent of Philip Morris funding a study saying that if you smoke you look 30% cooler.

The BBC news website is mentioning the 272g e-waste too, they are quoting Alex de Vries and Christian Stoll: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-58572385

Some parts of the media are not putting Bitcoin in a good light to those that might be interested in getting involved with crypto.

many false assumptions

first. asics dont process transactions.
asics have no hard drives and no matter if a block is empty or full the asics job is the same

secondly
yep. devs can remove the cludgy stifling code that limits transaction count tomorrow. and asics would be unaffected. if average transaction count went to 4k or even 10k (physically possible with 4mb 'weight')
that can instantly mess with the analysts numbers. without touching a single extra asic

thirdly.
doing some actual maths based on the s19pro and average hashrate of 135exa for the time period=1.2mill asics at 15.8kg each with 136million transactions performed in last 1.3 years

the assumption at real data is actually 142g.. so they are doing a 2x multiplier to make things sound 2x worse. even when they cant even understand there is no correlation between transaction count vs asic count

The more I think about it the more it becomes clear that the article did not provide hard provable data to derive to those conclusions about 272g of waste. Maybe the article was not supposed to overtly attack Bitcoin and crypto but was intended to be more subtle to push through an anti-Bitcoin and anti-mining agenda on a more subliminal level.

Either way the article raises a lot of questions in the way the author probably did not intend.

Well, they won't tell you that because if they do, their agenda won't be successful which is to make cryptocurrency look bad, remember that they want it to be that way, that's why you don't see how much the waste that paper money produce when they talk about the waste that cryptocurrency produces.

I wonder if this news appeared in your local media? The reason is very simple, they say that good news spreads fast, and bad news spreads even faster. I read this news yesterday on a very prominent local portal, and many other internet portals in the country relayed that news. Regardless of the fact that the whole thing is completely meaningless, such stories are then used by those who see Bitcoin as some evil innovation and definitely shape public opinion.

Actually if we compare it with paper money then it still better. Paper money cause polution more than we think. Every destructed paper money will be replaced by new one which means more and more waste. Maintaining paper money also need cost such as administration cost, security cost, delivery cost and etc. I think bitcoin transactions is still the best in this century.

It is very difficult to disagree with what you wrote highlighting the ambiguous nature of certain words used in the article but him stating "as illustrated by the gigantic environmental impact that the cryptocurrency Bitcoin had (as a result of its mining mechanism)”, well that just puts different spin on things. Mabe he does have a hidden agenda which was not made clear in The Guardian article.

Does it really mean he dislikes Bitcoin for another reason and has then taken a hard line environmental view as a result of his personal feelings or that he dislikes mining in general along with what he perceives as the environmental impact therefore Bitcoin is in his sights?

That's it exactly. It's all based on assumptions.

IF we assume that every bitcoin miner draws power from the standard electricity grid of the country they are mining in, and
IF we assume that every bitcoin miner pays $0.05/kWh for that electricity, and
IF we assume a couple of arbitrary adjustment factors which we don't explain how we arrive at, and
IF we assume peak sales of each ASIC is within a month of release, and
IF we assume that the second an ASIC becomes unprofitable with these previous assumption it is immediately disposed of, and
IF we assume it is disposed of to a landfill and none of these devices are ever recycled, used to mine other coins, or any other purpose,
THEN we reach this conclusion.

Change any one of those largely unsubstantiated assumptions and their entire conclusion is moot.

Maybe also worth noting that in their paper, they use the word "assume" (and its derivatives) 20 times, and "estimate" (and its derivatives) 50 times.

One of the Authors- De Vries - loves certain words
- assuming
- estimates
There are NO hard figures , so nothing to compare.
I’ve done some digging round and he seems to be the founder of

https://digiconomist.net/

And this quote is from his LinkedIn page
“Digiconomist is a platform that is dedicated to exposing the unintended consequences of digital trends, typically from an economic perspective. Tech trends often open up a world of possibilities, but also bring their own unique challenges. It’s easy to get lost in the optimism that accompanies those new possibilities,  but it’s important to maintain a healthy dose of realism. New technologies are rarely perfect, as illustrated by the gigantic environmental impact that the cryptocurrency Bitcoin had (as a result of its mining mechanism)”

https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-de-vries-a5b51349

Don’t think he likes Bitcoin too much

I am relieved by all the good comments that you guys have posted. Because I was surprised by the news by how unlikely it could be.
I cannot believe that the use of bitcoin could cause such costs in economic terms.

When an economist opines in the digital media, I already feel that the news is an anti-bitcoin.
We need bitcoin and crypto friendly economists who tell the whole truth.

Blockchain developers have all these calculations too.
But unfortunately this news affects the truthfulness of bitcoin and people are moving away from knowing more how it really works.

I agree, it would be interesting to read about the formula used ascertain various information regarding the waste output per Bitcoin transaction and use that same formula against other waste producing entities, it would be a good way to read side by side comparators.

If your friend has decided to become anti-Bitcoin then maybe one day he will change his mind and return back to the crypto embracing world, just keep trying to have your gentle discussions from time to time

Correct. Many a times, they are the ones that fail first and contributes mainly to the e-waste problem. The silicon in the chips are difficult to recycle because of the purity needed.
I get the point about aluminium being recyclable. That isn't really much of a concern given that we've already been recycling such a huge percentage of our aluminium cans and other miscellaneous stuff made from aluminium. The problem lies not only with the recycling aspect of it, as I've mentioned but rather the demand of it. We are incurring significant environmental impact by producing specific chips and boards that are designed for one purpose and one purpose only... Which is to mine a specific algorithm and afterwards there is no use for it. Great, it is recyclable. Does that mean it is environmentally friendly just because it can be recycled?

The answer is no. It might be feasible to recycle them(depending on their area and the parts we're concerned with), but that would only solve part of the problem, which is trying to mitigate part of the e-waste problem. The problem with this is that it is a multi-dimensional problem. We have to calculate both the carbon footprint for producing these ASICs, and recycling them as well to factor in the true derived carbon footprint of a single transaction. I want to bring the attention to the efficiency of a transaction instead, for which is it more efficient for Visa to process a transaction or for Bitcoin to process a transaction?

A study funded by a bank and written by Alex de Vries, who is employed by a bank and who has a long history of writing opinion pieces about how terrible bitcoin is. I'm absolutely positive that such an article will be completely neutral and not at all biased.

You should be able to download it from here: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0921344921005103-mmc1.docx

I've looked through the paper at length to try to figure out how they came up with this figure of "1.29 years" that they base their entire analysis on. They make a lot of references to "Supplementary Data Sheets", but these data sheets are nowhere to be found. I have full access to the Elsevier website and cannot find them there either. I downloaded the PDF of the article as well as the PDF of the entire Volume this article is published in, and can't find the reference data anywhere. So at least for the time being, a lot of their data is shrouded in mystery. Amazing that not a single one of the "news sites" which have reported this story have picked up on that. It's almost like they just spam anything for the clickbait headlines.

What they do say in the main paper is that all their assumptions regarding device lifespan are based upon it still being profitable at a cost of "USD 5 cents per kilowatt-hour" of electricity. Given that we know from other studies that the majority of bitcoin miners are using renewable energy supplies at prices far cheaper than this, and that some bitcoin miners are even being paid to use up electricity which would otherwise be wasted, this seems like a big assumption. They reference another paper for their $0.05/kWh figure (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3700822) which specifically states that this price is "comparatively higher" than others, with some regions reporting a median electricity price of only $0.025/kWh. So assuming that $0.05/kWh is a global average is incorrect, even by their own sources.

The data that they do share shows that reducing their incorrect assumption by a tiny amount to $0.045/kWh increases their predicted lifespan by a whopping 18.6%. Reducing further towards a true global average will increase the lifespan dramatically, and so the ridiculous comparison regarding 2 iPhones is complete nonsense.
 

There’s a lot of garbage from humans in general. We systematically pollute the environment with plastic and polyethylene, pour tons of slop into rivers, contaminate land with different pesticides every day, permanently deforesting, fires destroys trees on hundreds hectare of land, greenhouse effect of mega-cities also have harmful effect on environment. I can go on and mention about regular rocket launches into space and a lot of other factors. Pollution that comes from mining crypto is only one of factors that destroy our planet, but it’s unlikely to stop anyone to mine as well as to live ordinary lives with all its modern facilities.

The circuit boards are the hardest to recycle and may or may not be.
The same with the power supply and the other small components.

The aluminum is quick and simple.
And on older miners makes up even more.

For the old S9 miner I just took apart full weight: 152 ounces using a postage scale.
Take off the fans, the controller, the fan guards, the other steel bits, 3 ribbon cables, screws and put them in one pile.
Knock off all the heatsinks which are aluminum, and put them on top of the case which is also aluminum. 128 ounces.
Gives me a bit over 84% that can be recycled anywhere.
*The fans were not the ones that came with it, not sure about the fan guards so your numbers might be a bit different.

Any MAJOR farm that can't sell their old equipment on the secondary market because the hardware no longer works is going to have some way to get rid of this stuff.
Remember, there is a monetary value attached to it. Here in NY at the low end you get $0.50 a pound for aluminum, that is me waling in off the street.
If I had more, like I pile all the broken miners from a large operation and strip them. I could probably get 10%+ more if I am bringing in 1000s of pounds.

Now, on the individual scale, yes stuff might nor be recycled, but a commercial operation would never leave that money unclaimed.

-Dave

Not quoting mainstream media but a company involved in Bitcoin

Bitcoin estimates 113TWh/y
Gold estimates 240TWh/y

The daily income of miners is around $50millions, the gold production is at around 2500 tons, so around 7 tons of gold, $320m
112% consumption but 540% income, gold would win with those numbers.

But again, the focus is wrongly put here, Bitcoin DOES consume a ton of energy, you can't even have an argument against banks, if a whole country consumes less than the network is clear banks do even less. And if Bitcoin would be used by 4 billion people we would be at 10 million per coin by now and guess where the electricity consumption will go?

The thing is that there is no better option right now, otherwise, we would see a different coin taking over, we would see another algorithm or another type of currency altogether. Comparisons are useless, it is what it is, that energy consumption is because people are trusting the network with that amount of money, just how people spend money on gaming rigs, on Christmas lights, and so on if it weren't the trust there won't be any consumption.

Instead of per block, I'd like to see the amount of waste per dollar earned! That would make it possible to compare the Bitcoin mining industry to other sectors.