I think there are many worse things for the environment than mining bitcoin & we should look at them long before we question the negatives of mining.
Bitcoin mining needs to use some devices and devices that operate on electricity also negatively affect the environment. This is a bad thing. But why don't we look more positively about mining when minerals in real life depleted and you have to look for new solutions. Mining is also a solution that can help us earn a sum of money from it. 
Topic: Reports of bitcoin environmental damage are garbage (Read 376 times)
People have tried everything possible to drag the $Bitcoin name to the mud, from being a tool used by criminals to perpetrate, crime to being a tool for terrorism, trafficking, money laundering, child abuse, power wastage/consuming activity now claims of environmental hazards! All these tales are balderdash!
If you want to know the bad / negative things about bitcoins, then the list is long and you can say anything about bitcoin like it support criminals etc but this is only one side of picture. If you see the positive things in bitcoin then again you will find it very positive and useful also. It is our mindset in which way we want to see bitcoin and those who like / support bitcoin always think of positive aspects of bitcoins.
creating a negative list about something is not hard. and there is no end to that list either. but what matters is that if you start putting meaningful negative points in that list then your list wouldn't go any higher than 2 or 3 items.
all the rest such as criminal activity, money laundering, environmental damage,... are invalid things that are added to make that list long.
Majority accuse bitcoin of destroying the environment by consuming or wasting electricity in a bad way but We spend electricity and other valuable resources for unnecessary things that has no value and make no production but some point out the Bitcoin energy consumption as a huge problem to the world environment but with sustainable mining methods and other systems in the future Bitcoin electricity usage will headed low and such problems will not occur again
People have tried everything possible to drag the $Bitcoin name to the mud, from being a tool used by criminals to perpetrate, crime to being a tool for terrorism, trafficking, money laundering, child abuse, power wastage/consuming activity now claims of environmental hazards! All these tales are balderdash!
If you want to know the bad / negative things about bitcoins, then the list is long and you can say anything about bitcoin like it support criminals etc but this is only one side of picture. If you see the positive things in bitcoin then again you will find it very positive and useful also. It is our mindset in which way we want to see bitcoin and those who like / support bitcoin always think of positive aspects of bitcoins.
Proof of Stake and Proof of Works are basically thesame in terms of energy consumption. Where is the source of money for staking on ethereum or other PoS blockchains? Don't forget we don't pluck money from trees... Energy creates Value(money) or Energy = Money.
How is the money for buying ethereum stakes earned? From clean energy?
How is the money for buying ethereum stakes earned? From clean energy?
This news will still appear in order to spread negative information about bitcoin. It is not clear what purpose it is done. After all, if you delve into the topic it becomes clear that bitcoin mining does not harm the environment. Usually people tend to believe the scientific justification and the opinion of scientists, but how much truth in their words no one will check, because they are scientists. But it could actually be anyone, he just pretend to be a scientist and keep misinforming people. We should encourage people to always check any information and always get to the truth. This is the only way to not be deceived.
Here are a few simple facts.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
2. That equates to $5 million a day on electric costs, sure some might be green, but some of that that electricity could be used by someone else that subsequently didn't have the green electric.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
2. That equates to $5 million a day on electric costs, sure some might be green, but some of that that electricity could be used by someone else that subsequently didn't have the green electric.
Miners aren't generating the electricity. They're consuming it. This is an important distinction to make.
To prevent an unreliable power grid, power plants generate electricity above and beyond demand. Miners can actually make power generation less wasteful through load balancing agreements with power plants.
We should be asking not only what percentage of mining is green, but how much miners are increasing electricity demand beyond what is already generated. Where miners are causing utility districts and power companies to purchase electricity beyond normal capacity, that's relevant. The sum total of all mining inputs is not relevant.
So basically bitcoin must be wasting $2 Billion a year that is in effect environmental damage.
If you actually account for the above, it's probably far less. Miners have incentive to operate where there is excess capacity because electricity costs will be cheaper.
You should also consider what Bitcoin might be replacing. The gold mining and banking industries require huge amounts of energy too, much of which is not green.
Reports of bitcoin environmental damage are ignorable because none have calculated and measured precisely how much environmental damage does by bitcoin due to electricity use or any other way but we should agree that traditional system make big damage to the nature due to there ineffective, inefficient methods and procedures but sadly no one talks about them because most want to show and spread about the bad side of bitcoin and some how restrict its expansion
People have tried everything possible to drag the $Bitcoin name to the mud, from being a tool used by criminals to perpetrate, crime to being a tool for terrorism, trafficking, money laundering, child abuse, power wastage/consuming activity now claims of environmental hazards! All these tales are balderdash!
If bitcoin is an environmental damage, each and every advancement is an environmental damage. From my understanding bitcoin is completely network dependent and requires adequate supply of electricity for its functioning. In specific what bitcoin consumes will be little higher than the normal consumption by systems. But the outcome of these systems were much high in comparison to others.
just one of the things to try to discredit bitcoin which is false
like "bitcoin is used by criminals" stigma , while in reality it is just a fraction of what fiat money figures are
I liked the keep coke bottles chill comment, pretty much true
there are things that we spend electricity on without thinking but we do not claim it is damaging environment
think of all the netflix movies we watch at home and all the electricity our TVs are using =netflix is damaging environment
like "bitcoin is used by criminals" stigma , while in reality it is just a fraction of what fiat money figures are
I liked the keep coke bottles chill comment, pretty much true
there are things that we spend electricity on without thinking but we do not claim it is damaging environment
think of all the netflix movies we watch at home and all the electricity our TVs are using =netflix is damaging environment
Makes you wonder if Alex de Vries has been paid off by companies that benefit from the demise of Bitcoin.
He does put traditional credit card networks into a good light, by making a false comparison to Bitcoin.
He does put traditional credit card networks into a good light, by making a false comparison to Bitcoin.
Or he is paid to do what he does, or it is about ignorance or some kind of hate toward BTC, I do not think there's a third reason for what he is doing. What a writer of Medium article think about that person speaks for itself :
Quote
Alex de Vries, a twenty-something year old who has zero knowledge of the electricity industry, power system modelling, China, or any related real-world experience...
Whoever visits his site and read all the nonsense he publishes on it, can very easily conclude that he think BTC is main world problem. But I was curious how much energy is spend by all banks in the world in one year, and by some researches it is close to a 100 terawatt hours a year., and BTC is just using 28.67 terawatt hours a year. In addition to this card readers, credit cards and their data centers consume 10% of the global energy consumption.
What is even more important to be emphasized is that BTC mining is using almost 80% energy from renewable sources, so to blame this activity for global climate and environmental issues is a complete nonsense.
Although we may not be able to see with the naked eye the harm bitcoin mining has done to our environment, there is no doubt that the bitcoin network will have to reduce its energy consumption before the bitcoin block chain becomes widespread. It is not surprising that regulators are trying to control/reduce electricity consumption by formulating policies and regulations for miners.
Because Bitcoin miners are so sensitive to electricity prices, this will drive research and development in the energy sector and produce more effective energy solutions. It's hard to understand the positive and negative externalities of Bitcoin, so it's hard to say whether the energy consumed by mining is really "worth it". However, if the power consumption of mining is not controlled or efficiency is not improved, if people realize the negative impact of Bitcoin mining on the environment, then its impact on the environment may be irreversible.
Because Bitcoin miners are so sensitive to electricity prices, this will drive research and development in the energy sector and produce more effective energy solutions. It's hard to understand the positive and negative externalities of Bitcoin, so it's hard to say whether the energy consumed by mining is really "worth it". However, if the power consumption of mining is not controlled or efficiency is not improved, if people realize the negative impact of Bitcoin mining on the environment, then its impact on the environment may be irreversible.
more electric is used to keep bottles of Pepsi chilled.
i like this statement! LOL
Here are a few simple facts.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
you can not make a guess and call it a "fact" instead! so far it is simply your guess.
So basically bitcoin must be wasting
whatever that real number is, why do you think it is "wasting"? just because YOU don't think bitcoin is useful it doesn't mean it is not providing a well needed service to thousands of people worldwide.one thing i can say, with the introduction of cryptocurrencies especially bitcoin, many people have been served and continue to be served by this crypto revolution. time and money have been saved by utilizing those payment centers that accept bitcoin and other crypto for instance. so i don't see any wasting of energy here. it saves energy instead.
90% of the bitcoin related news websites are desperate for smallest things to publish and get some traffic directed to their shitty website so you can only imagine how a heated topic like the supposed bitcoin's environmental damage could spread like wildfire. and that is exactly what happened, they hyped up the issue by exaggeration and false information and then the click baiters took care of the rest.
Except that it was the mainstream media that spread this crap, I remember well how articles about Bitcoin consuming ALL world's electricity were hitting reddit's front page some time ago, and to this day when someone mentions Bitcoin outside of crypto subs, people jump in with the same statements that Bitcoin is killing the environment. I find it especially ironic, because those comments are most likely made by a middle-class American, who drives a car every day, uses air conditioning, buys a ton of useless items, thus contributing to the global warming much more than Bitcoin.
Yeah, I've mainly remembered pretty big newspapers who actually published this, they probably sourced their "facts" directly from De Vries himself.
The numbers that were being mentioned back then already seemed exaggerated to me, now it comes out that some of them were completely fabricated almost.
90% of the bitcoin related news websites are desperate for smallest things to publish and get some traffic directed to their shitty website so you can only imagine how a heated topic like the supposed bitcoin's environmental damage could spread like wildfire. and that is exactly what happened, they hyped up the issue by exaggeration and false information and then the click baiters took care of the rest.
Except that it was the mainstream media that spread this crap, I remember well how articles about Bitcoin consuming ALL world's electricity were hitting reddit's front page some time ago, and to this day when someone mentions Bitcoin outside of crypto subs, people jump in with the same statements that Bitcoin is killing the environment. I find it especially ironic, because those comments are most likely made by a middle-class American, who drives a car every day, uses air conditioning, buys a ton of useless items, thus contributing to the global warming much more than Bitcoin.
you can not make a guess and call it a "fact" instead! so far it is simply your guess.
whatever that real number is, why do you think it is "wasting"? just because YOU don't think bitcoin is useful it doesn't mean it is not providing a well needed service to thousands of people worldwide.
whatever that real number is, why do you think it is "wasting"? just because YOU don't think bitcoin is useful it doesn't mean it is not providing a well needed service to thousands of people worldwide.
Its not a guess, its economics. People tend to spend 90 cents if they get a 100 back. If you only had to spend 50 then more people would do it hence the price goes up. If it was more than 100 then people would stop and the price goes down. Economics 101.
If you think its not wasting then you are delusional. But that's true of most bitcoin fans.
more electric is used to keep bottles of Pepsi chilled.
Here are a few simple facts.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
you can not make a guess and call it a "fact" instead! so far it is simply your guess.
So basically bitcoin must be wasting
whatever that real number is, why do you think it is "wasting"? just because YOU don't think bitcoin is useful it doesn't mean it is not providing a well needed service to thousands of people worldwide. 
Here are a few simple facts.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
2. That equates to $5 million a day on electric costs, sure some might be green, but some of that that electricity could be used by someone else that subsequently didn't have the green electric.
So basically bitcoin must be wasting $2 Billion a year that is in effect environmental damage.
1. Approx 90% of bitcoins mined are sold to pay for the electric.
2. That equates to $5 million a day on electric costs, sure some might be green, but some of that that electricity could be used by someone else that subsequently didn't have the green electric.
So basically bitcoin must be wasting $2 Billion a year that is in effect environmental damage.
Hmmm, I wonder where have you pulled off these numbers. If these are facts, where are the statistics, or even a link explaining how do they get such numbers.
If bitcoin increases, more people mine and so the environmental impact is linked very closely to the price of btc.
No. If bitcoin's price increases, more people are trading more than mining. Mining equipment/machines also goes up when the price of 1 bitcoin goes up; they are, at most times, directly proportional to each other, so why would people risk their money into mining when they can just buy bitcoin on the spot and wait for the price to go up? Wouldn't that be practical and easier for them to do so? The environmental 'damage' these people are referring to is really not a problem, and if it is, then why are we turning a blind eye on industries that also utilizes a huge amount of energy? The problem is not on bitcoin's utilization of enormous amount of energy, pseudo-environmentalists.
Jump to: