Author

Topic: Maling paniniwala sa "Pag sira ng Bitcoin sa kapaligiran" isang argumento (Read 49 times)

hero member
Activity: 1498
Merit: 974
Bitcoin Casino Est. 2013
Akda ni: fillippone
Orihinal na paksa: Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument




Kamakailan lang ay marami akong na papakinggan patulong sa Bitcoin tulad ng ang “Bitcoin is sobrang nakaka sama sa kalikasan”, “Ang Bitcoin ay sayang lang sa enerhiya” at iba pang mga katulad nito.

Ang mga ganiyang usapin ay kasing tanda na tulad ng Bitcoin, kahit si  Satoshi ay pinag usapan ito, ay sinabi nang wala itong katotohanan, pero narito ako para ayusin ang mga bagay bagay para sa usapin na ito.

Susubukan kong bigyan ng “kasagutan”ang mga ito na may kasamang mga datos mula sa website at iba pang maaring pagkuhaan. Para maging maayos ang pag presenta at ma “depensehan” ang Bitcoin.

    • Depensa
      • Televisions, aeroplanes, Christmas lights, plastic, ang mga lahat ng iyon ay gumagamit ng enerhiya para mapagana: Gaano kadami ang ginagamit ng mga iyon? Bakit hindi tulad ng Bitcoin ang dami ng pag kunsumo ng mga iyon?.
      • Ayon sa datos mula sa Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, ang mga gamit na hindi ginagalaw o ginagamit mula sa United States lamang ay maari na gamitin ang kunsumo para patakbuhin ang bitcoin network ng higit isang taon at kalahati (maari ninyo tignan mula dito ang pag baba).
      • Ang pag mimina ng bitcoin ay maganda para maganda sa kapaligiran hindi tulad ng pag mimina tulad ng mga tumataas na klase ng gamit (Ginto)

        Notice that rejected energy accounts for around two-thirds of all electricity generation. This energy is produced but ultimately does not go to practical work. The amount wasted annually is around 66.7 quadrillions of BTUs (for short: "quads") of power. For perspective, that is the energy equivalent of wasting 2.3 billion metric tons of coal every year.

        Quote
        The potential for Bitcoin-powered renewables is already evident in China. A 2019 report by Coinshares found that approximately 75% of Bitcoin mining comes from renewable energy sources, much of which stems from newly created hydroelectricity. These new revenue streams have brought power plants online, which otherwise would not have been economically viable given existing conditions.



      • Ang Bitcoin ay isang baterya.
        Quote
        So, if we think of Bitcoin as a battery, what can we do with it? The critical properties of Bitcoin's battery are: 1) always on and permissionless (no need to find customers, just plug and go) and 2) naturally seeking low-cost electricity: it will always buy when the price is right.

        Given those properties, Bitcoin's battery can assist renewable builds (and electric grids more generally) in several ways:
        • Interconnection lines: When developing new energy resources, you must apply them to connect them to the grid. Texas alone has over 100 GW of renewables in its lines. These lines can take years to clear. In the meantime, these assets could be online and earn Bitcoin.
        • Project finance: Renewable developers need capital to finance build-outs before they have customers. Bitcoin's battery is always ready to be the first customer.
        • Geographic issues: Sometimes, the sunniest, windiest places are not the ones with the most customers, so it's hard to justify the development of new renewables. Bitcoin's battery solves this, becoming a "virtual transmission line" of sorts.
        • Timing & grid balance: Sometimes, when the sun shines and when the wind blows is not when we need the most electricity. Yet, electric grids are marketplaces that must balance supply and demand perfectly. Therefore, grid-connected renewables often have to "curtail" (turn off) if they produce too much energy at the wrong time. Bitcoin's battery is ready to buy 24/7/365 when the price is right, turning up and down as needed and participating via direct power purchase agreements and demand response programs.
        • Underperformance: Related to the timing & balance issues above, often, renewables produce more energy than is needed on their grid, leading to subpar financial performance. Bitcoin's battery is ready to buy if no one else will.
        • Cleaning the grid: Even outside of renewable generation, Bitcoin's battery can help improve both emissions and the energy mix. For example, Crusoe Energy attaches efficient turbines and mining equipment to existing gas flaring sites, both improving emissions and converting energy into Bitcoin's battery. Taking this a step further, you could even then take those profits and reinvest them in on-grid renewables elsewhere, another twist on the idea of Bitcoin as a "virtual transmission line" (aka battery).



    • Akusasyon
      • Ang Bitcoin network ay isa talaga sa mga hindi makunsumo, kung titignan sa PoW na kada gamit ng Bitcoin ay makukumpara ito na para ka lang gumagamit ng Visa.

    • Depensa
      • Ang enerhiyang ginagamit sa Bitcoin network ay para mas mapainam ang seguridadpara sa mga nais umatake sa Bitcoin (kung saan mas kinakailangan pa nila ng mas maraming enerhiya o di kaya ay gumawa nito) na mas mataas pa dapat sa enerhiyang ginagamit ng Bitcoin network.
      • . PoW isang magandang bagay pag sa pagmimina tulad nalang sa mga ibang industriya. Isang mababang enerhiya lang ang magamit ay paniguradong may apekto sa kita, kaya mas pinipili nilang gumagamit ng mataas na enerhiya.
      • Ang pag gamit ng mining ay hindi mataas tulad ng gastos ng pag transaksiyon, may ilang pdin dito pinag babasihan ng e.g isang transaksiyon ng bitcoin ay tulad ng pag gamit ng isang Visa circuit, ay talagang hindi makahulugan. Ang pag gamit ng mining ay para magamit ng maayos ang isang system (mas doble ang gastos para ito ay masigurang ligtas sa mga atake sa network) sa isang hindi ligtas na network. i.e ang bawat isa ay dapat sumangayon na nalagay sa ledger. Sumatutal ang pinagkaibahan laamng ay ang circuit security system at pagkakaroon tulad ng banking systems. Magkano ng aba ang ginagastos ng buong mundo para lamang sa mga pag babayad ng bank para ito ay maging ligtas, na may kasamang authorisation, settlement, clearing, reconciliation, etc. Hindi pa dito kasama ang pag gawa, pag operasyon, mag sasaayos, pag babantay sa mga ATM, bank branches, vaults, at iba pang kasama dito
      • Ayon sa sulat na it article, Conio's Guido D.Assori (kung saan pumirma ng pinaka unang SegWit transaksiyon), ito ay isang magandang katangian at hindi sira sa systema.
        Bilang pag bibigay halaga na nakasaad sa artikulo, kung saan sinagot ni Paolo Attivissimo's ang mga akusasyon para sa konsumo ng bitcoin na halos 7 transaksiyon lamang kada sigundo.

        Quote
        All this energy for 7 transactions per second?
        The third attack would be that Bitcoin would move 7 transactions per second, and that in a nutshell for a system of this kind even a few kilowatt hours would be wasted (curious, then, that Attivissimo remembers this after accepting Bitcoin donations for years, on his blog, of this big problem).
        Quickly: this number unfortunately arises from a profound misunderstanding of the real decoupling between the technological infrastructure called "blockchain" and the transfer of value named in Bitcoin.
        It's frequent, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.
        Premise: "It's a feature!", i.e. the size of the Blockchain is deliberately small.
        Being able to write on a blockchain must be a luxury, in order for it to remain decentralized, so that everyone, at any time and with relatively little effort, can autonomously verify the correctness of transactions on the network, and not just the large banking institutions.
        However, now at every moment of the day, on cryptocurrency exchanges, on custodial platforms, by means of pegged tokens, on sidechains, on Lighting Network, by means of CFDs, Bitcoins are intermediated and exchanged, or contracts that are traced back to their value , with varying degrees of enforcement.
        And this happens through a number of transactions that are much more than 7 per second, believe me! To expect the opposite would be like demanding that our morning coffee paid for at the bar be recorded by all the backups of all the nodes of all the interbank circuits in the Eurozone.
        So how many transactions, really?
        In general it is an unmeasurable number, and it will be less and less, the estimates will be more and more heuristic, also thanks to privacy preserving platforms.
        We can say, to make the general idea, that every transaction that takes place on an orderbook of any platform, which represents Bitcoin, can only exist thanks to the fact that, underneath, there is the Proof Of Work which, if necessary, allows the settlement of a precise state of a chain of transactions of indefinite length (my token goes to you, who gives it to him, who gives it to the other, who breaks it in three and gives it to the other, who collects 8 ). Don't you expect all the coins you exchange to end up noted down somewhere?
        Simply, people rely on intermediaries every day to exchange value in Bitcoin without using a blockchain directly.
        The global concept of decentralization is maintained, relocation increases with confidence on the last mile (not always! LN!) but the connecting element always remains the last, only, true, mandatory, digital ledger in which the compensation movements.
        Therefore, comparing the imaginary 7 transactions (which is a number that was good in 2013, today there are many more even on-chain) to the world's ability to transact Bitcoin, and linking it to PoW, is a bit like pretending that there are, at all times, a sufficient number of armored cars to move all the gold in all the vaults of the world that intend to exchange gold.

        Of course, that's not how it works.

        Ang Bitcoin ay hindi lamang pang payment system kundi pang settlement system. Kung ikukumpara ay hindi para sa payment circuits (credit cards), kung saang mayroong settlement layers (SWIFT, CHIPS) or Fedwire.

        Para sa partikular na aspeto, maari ninyong basahin ito ng maigi Mausisang pag tingin sa Epekto ng Bitcoin Mining sa Kapaligiran

        Quote

        Bitcoin is a settlement system, not a payments aggregator

        First things first. What is Bitcoin, and what is it not?

        Bitcoin is a settlement system like FedWire. It is not a payments aggregator like Visa. I constantly see Bitcoin compared to Visa, MasterCard, or PayPal. This is the primary source of mathematical atrocities whereby Bitcoin's overall electricity cost is divided by its transactions and then compared to something it's not. Energy use per settlement transaction is a nonsensical metric by which to judge Bitcoin's energy use.

        Just like the 800,000 or so daily FedWire transactions are not a good measure of the total amount of daily Dollar (USD) transactions, Bitcoin's 325,000 or so daily transactions are not a good measure of the total amount of daily bitcoin (BTC/XBT) transactions. This is because most bitcoin transactions are not visible. They take place inside the payment aggregation systems of exchanges, on the Lightning network, and yes, even inside of actual aggregators like PayPal, Square, or MasterCard. Only periodically are they settled onto the Bitcoin blockchain as visible transactions.

        Solutions like this are referred to as network layering. This is a tried and tested approach to separating casual retail transactions from heavier settlement transactions, and it is precisely how we already do things in the fiat monetary and payment systems. In such a system, the base layer, like FedWire (or Bitcoin), only acts as the final arbitrator of settlement transactions. Everything else, which is the vast majority of all transactions, happens in higher payment aggregation layers, which are often entirely different systems.

        In other words, Bitcoin is not a competitor to Visa, MasterCard or Paypal. Instead, Bitcoin is an independent monetary system that aggregators can make use of.

        Presenting Bitcoin's electricity consumption in terms of its daily number of settlement transactions is a red herring.

      • Katulad sa kunsidersayon na maaring gawin patungkol sa gold at bitcoin bilang “digital gold”, na may karagdagan pa dito ang maaring gastos at pag iimbak tulad ng gold, at para sap ag mimina, pag tatanggal ng hindi kailangan, pag smelt, pag angkat etc. at iba pang kailangan na idagdag. Hinahamon ko ang ilan sa inyo upang talakayin ang paksang ito partikular na sa “green”, pero katunayan wala pa akong narinig na reklamo sa kainila na ipag bawal ang gold para sa ating kapaligiran.

Isang magandang pagkumpara ang ibinahagi ni Nic Carter pag tuwid sa maling paniniwala ng Bloomberg article sa mining laman ng halos impormasyon na nasa itaas:

Noahbjectivity on Bitcoin Mining



Quote
The Bloomberg columnist Noah Smith has a lot of thoughts on Bitcoin. Some of them are really solid and engage with the reality of the protocol itself, which is rare for a member of the mainstream media circuit. He also discloses that he owns Bitcoin, which is impressive for an economist and an established member. So I'm pretty happy with him overall. I don't want this piece to be interpreted as a blanket critique of Noah's stance on Bitcoin. However, Noah's recent column in Bloomberg, Bitcoin Miners are on a Path to Self-Destruction, makes a few claims that warrant a response.
Noah's basic premise is that Bitcoin miners are effectively hogging the grid in the various places where they operate and risk getting banned entirely. Not only is the notion of a global coordinated ban on mining far-fetched, but Noah relies on a few claims that are dubious at best. Let's investigate.


Ang ilan sa kinikilalang "Sanay" na may magandang akda:





Para sa iba pang importanteng impormasyon:

Jump to: