I'm more concerned that we're succumbing to this eco terrorism that seems to imply that we're some kind of destroyers of the environment. That bitcoiners are irresponsible and are wasting energy mining something that doesn't do anything and doesn't help the world in any way.
What is eco terrorism? The idea that we should ban everything that produces greenhouse gases. We should somehow make people buy those inefficient and expensive electric cars, just because they don't burn fuel. We should make countries shut down their coal burning industry and build inefficient and expensive wind generators, and so on.
I think that "eco" industry is a big scam and countries that participated in it for many years like Germany are already experiencing the effects of their actions. A few months ago the EU was trying to enforce a ban on gasoline and diesel engines, but Germany opposed this. We're talking about a country that used to vote for sanctions against EU members with high CO2 emissions.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/germany-rejects-eu-plan-ban-new-fossil-fuel-cars-2035-2022-06-21/
Topic: [Q/A] Can Bitcoin And Eco-friendliness Go Together? - page 2. (Read 429 times)
Some people do not care about the great amount of electricity all other industries are using to power their continuing functionality and profit making. Even if bitcoin is not existing, and there is still continuous deforestation (in which plants that take in carbon dioxide are reducing in population across the world) and release of green house gases into the atmosphere by vehicles and industries, there would be global warming and more thawing of permafrost.
I am always surprised that some people are just bitcoin critics but do not know the truth about what is actually happening. Is electricity even only the cause of global warming? No. It even also depends on how the electricity is generated. There are clean/green energy generation from wind, solar, nuclear and well constructed hydroelectric power plants.
This is still this year Coinshare research about bitcoin mining and to what extent it is deteriorating the environment in relation to release of green house gases when compared to other human activities:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.59129918
The bitcoin mining network CoinShares research
This was the conclussion:
Yes, before China banned bitcon, over 75% of the electricity used to mine bitcoin worldwide are from clean energy. Likely it reduced after the ban, but reduced to 50%, 60% or less as Kazakhsta and miners from countries that started to mine or increase the mining hashrate likely generate more from fossil fuel. But after, miners have proposed and some are working on converting fuel waste to energy, even one petroleum company giant in USA is working on this to make it possible in some countries that have crude oil refineries, and here is another one.
I am always surprised that some people are just bitcoin critics but do not know the truth about what is actually happening. Is electricity even only the cause of global warming? No. It even also depends on how the electricity is generated. There are clean/green energy generation from wind, solar, nuclear and well constructed hydroelectric power plants.
This is still this year Coinshare research about bitcoin mining and to what extent it is deteriorating the environment in relation to release of green house gases when compared to other human activities:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.59129918
The bitcoin mining network CoinShares research
This was the conclussion:
"Will Bitcoin ever become environmentally friendly?"
Yes, it can, and is to an extent already.Yes, before China banned bitcon, over 75% of the electricity used to mine bitcoin worldwide are from clean energy. Likely it reduced after the ban, but reduced to 50%, 60% or less as Kazakhsta and miners from countries that started to mine or increase the mining hashrate likely generate more from fossil fuel. But after, miners have proposed and some are working on converting fuel waste to energy, even one petroleum company giant in USA is working on this to make it possible in some countries that have crude oil refineries, and here is another one.
"Will Bitcoin ever become environmentally friendly?"
Yes, it can, and is to an extent already.Are there industries which are worse off in how environmentally unfriendly they are, and yet are not a subject of public criticism? Yes.
The above question shows bitcoin going green would not bring a lasting solution to the social criticism it gets. Going 100% green is a huge task for any industry and not usually set as a standard, but there is an exception here as bitcoin is not a conventional industry like many others, and with those, the government would take a sort of passive approach towards their environmental effects.
Bitcoin can and is going green, but I doubt it can ever go as green those who envy and wish to exert some sort of control on the network.
"Is bitcoin going to do anything about the Congressional proposal to ban Proof-of-Work algorithms?"
Devs cannot do anything, but the community can.Announcing the efforts of miners to keeping the environment safe and reducing carbon emissions, would show mining activities is not as bad as it is reported to be. The major issue with this, is how most media houses prefer to report unsettling news about bitcoin, for more engagements.
- Jay -
options
power companies made to limit a industries power usage to X% of local power plants power capacity (if it has excess), per business location
meaning farms are not exahash size asic farms, but X petahash size asic farms per location. this can help decentralise bitcoin mining.
instead of having "mega" asic farms it has more distributed mini asic farms where they are separately managed in lots of locations per state, thus distributing the electrical demand over different towns grid circuits instead of some mega asic farm location syphoning alot of power to one location
locations that are in are in area's that support high percentage green energy.
when new renewable power plants start. they have not built just enough production for todays demands. they have built capacity in consideration to future demands. whereby usually they are producing more power but not able to have enough residents/businesses to pay for the electric produced.
this excess can be sold to new industry entering the location. thus giving more income to power companies to then upgrade/expand new renewable plants in other locations sooner by paying off the build costs of the first plants earlier
by asic farms re-locating away from fossil powered locations. where demand on fossil is decreased. less fossil is used and thus if the demand declines below the state/counties renewable capacity they can switch off the fossil plant
power companies made to limit a industries power usage to X% of local power plants power capacity (if it has excess), per business location
meaning farms are not exahash size asic farms, but X petahash size asic farms per location. this can help decentralise bitcoin mining.
instead of having "mega" asic farms it has more distributed mini asic farms where they are separately managed in lots of locations per state, thus distributing the electrical demand over different towns grid circuits instead of some mega asic farm location syphoning alot of power to one location
locations that are in are in area's that support high percentage green energy.
when new renewable power plants start. they have not built just enough production for todays demands. they have built capacity in consideration to future demands. whereby usually they are producing more power but not able to have enough residents/businesses to pay for the electric produced.
this excess can be sold to new industry entering the location. thus giving more income to power companies to then upgrade/expand new renewable plants in other locations sooner by paying off the build costs of the first plants earlier
by asic farms re-locating away from fossil powered locations. where demand on fossil is decreased. less fossil is used and thus if the demand declines below the state/counties renewable capacity they can switch off the fossil plant
Disclaimer: Eco-friendliness does not imply low power consumption. Cloud computing data centers use huge power sources to power their operations to which if pressure from green activists was diverted to shutting down would also take down most of the top 1000 websites with them. So any posts spreading rumors about "the upcoming winter killing miners and cryptocurrencies" will be summarily deleted by myself, thanks.
See the supplementary article on my blog about what miners can do to combat climate change here: Bitcoin Being Energy Efficient?
Two very significant events happened recently which prompted me to start this topic:
- Ethereum's transition to Proof-of-Stake was completed yesterday
- Congress wants to make a law to ban Proof-of-work mining algorithms (as with most partisan efforts in the US of A, this is largely a farce and abortive effort, more at danger to be forgotten by both parties should a more political conflict emerge - that it all I will talk about them in this post)
Some of the more non-technical people or perhaps policy makers reading this board are probably shaking their heads, with all the aversion to Proof of Stake shown here:
"Will Bitcoin ever become environmentally friendly?"
Yes, Bitcoin can become environmentally friendly in a way that doesn't require a change to its Proof of Work model. It should be known that Bitcoin mining is fully capable of harnessing the power of all kinds of renewable energy, and in fact, many mining farms are already using them.
The environmental cleanliness question is largely the miners' problem and there's nothing the devs can do about it - since any such solution would require taking power away from miners and giving that power to other, significantly less centralized entities (it is nobody's desire except perhaps for the trolls at r/Buttcoin to see Bitcoin suffer a 51% attack).
"Will miners keep contributing to make increasing larger pollution?"
Regarding the waste products of electricity generation from various renewable and non-renewable sources. Miners can help lower the carbon footprint by using renewable energy as I mentioned above, and also by using the waste products of other fuel processes, such as methane, as a source for electricity.
Like I said, it depends on the miners to design innovative electricity generation methods that use different types of green fuel sources, particularly those which utilize the waste products of fossil fuel generation. This is a non-technical problem domain however, and developers can not enforce any rules for this on the network.
"Is bitcoin going to do anything about the Congressional proposal to ban Proof-of-Work algorithms?"
No. Once again, this is not a developer problem. Also, the merge took a few years from start to finish to be fully carried out. Trying to rush the process in a timespan of a few months will split the network into many pieces.
"Why not just run it on a handful of computers?"
Because doing that will make it vulnerable to a 51% attack (one person or group with more than half of the total hash power can mine whatever transactions they want, censor, or defraud people). It's important to note that new cryptocurrencies cannot start out with the Proof of Stake model because it is easy for anyone to get a majority supply of coins during that phase. What usually happens after this is the coins become worthless because the entire supply of coins constantly get transferred between thieves.
Self-moderated against spam. Do not post irrelevant, trolling remarks in this topic (see the top of this post for specific details). Discussion is of course welcome.
See the supplementary article on my blog about what miners can do to combat climate change here: Bitcoin Being Energy Efficient?
Two very significant events happened recently which prompted me to start this topic:
- Ethereum's transition to Proof-of-Stake was completed yesterday
- Congress wants to make a law to ban Proof-of-work mining algorithms (as with most partisan efforts in the US of A, this is largely a farce and abortive effort, more at danger to be forgotten by both parties should a more political conflict emerge - that it all I will talk about them in this post)
Some of the more non-technical people or perhaps policy makers reading this board are probably shaking their heads, with all the aversion to Proof of Stake shown here:
"Will Bitcoin ever become environmentally friendly?"
Yes, Bitcoin can become environmentally friendly in a way that doesn't require a change to its Proof of Work model. It should be known that Bitcoin mining is fully capable of harnessing the power of all kinds of renewable energy, and in fact, many mining farms are already using them.
The environmental cleanliness question is largely the miners' problem and there's nothing the devs can do about it - since any such solution would require taking power away from miners and giving that power to other, significantly less centralized entities (it is nobody's desire except perhaps for the trolls at r/Buttcoin to see Bitcoin suffer a 51% attack).
"Will miners keep contributing to make increasing larger pollution?"
Regarding the waste products of electricity generation from various renewable and non-renewable sources. Miners can help lower the carbon footprint by using renewable energy as I mentioned above, and also by using the waste products of other fuel processes, such as methane, as a source for electricity.
Like I said, it depends on the miners to design innovative electricity generation methods that use different types of green fuel sources, particularly those which utilize the waste products of fossil fuel generation. This is a non-technical problem domain however, and developers can not enforce any rules for this on the network.
"Is bitcoin going to do anything about the Congressional proposal to ban Proof-of-Work algorithms?"
No. Once again, this is not a developer problem. Also, the merge took a few years from start to finish to be fully carried out. Trying to rush the process in a timespan of a few months will split the network into many pieces.
"Why not just run it on a handful of computers?"
Because doing that will make it vulnerable to a 51% attack (one person or group with more than half of the total hash power can mine whatever transactions they want, censor, or defraud people). It's important to note that new cryptocurrencies cannot start out with the Proof of Stake model because it is easy for anyone to get a majority supply of coins during that phase. What usually happens after this is the coins become worthless because the entire supply of coins constantly get transferred between thieves.
Self-moderated against spam. Do not post irrelevant, trolling remarks in this topic (see the top of this post for specific details). Discussion is of course welcome.
Jump to: