Topic: Should Bitcoin lower its carbon footprint? (Read 565 times)

The climate is changing world wide and it is a real issue but putting all the fault into bitcoin is not the way things have to be done, here you are talking about the global mining energy consumption and if you are taking that into account you need to take the rest of the industries globally and calculate how much energy they are using. I wonder whether these tech companies are using green energy to power their servers globally and i bet they are eating a lot of energy combined than bitcoin mining and it will pale in comparison.

The facts are simple on this IMO

1. Most people don't even get the reason we use money at all, and they don't care
2. So even fewer people are ever going to understand why PoW is such a smart solution for anti-corrupt money


I can just imagine the exact sort of person I'm thinking of, reading this and saying "b-b-b-but Bitcoin is the most corrupt money! It's the dark web!"


And the answer is simple: it's not corrupt when everybody has an equal chance to use it. Only well-connected people can use the regular banks to get away with corruption. Everyone drinking alcohol in prohibition America was a criminal too, until they revoked prohibition laws. Magic!!


and so -

Q is it worth using energy so that we all have an equal opportunity to use our own money how we choose?
A It's not even relevant, because even though Bitcoin achieves that, it's impossible to stop it even if you disagree

Bitcoin was designed to be unstoppable, being freely available to everyone was only a side effect of that

It's Christmas time, the "POW is killing the environment" trolls should go on a rampage to stop Christmas because Christmas lights are wasting electricity, and destroying the planet.

But what was that? They also don't care? They just want to troll Bitcoin? OK.

That's why Ethereum is here!!!

Most of the time, coals are subjected to the production of electricity especially if the mining facility resides on a usual and normal community. Basically using hydroelectricity, solar power, and wind energy will not supply enough power to run mining facilities since it consumes a lot of resources, in order for it to save, the protocol inside of the system or blockchain should be developed. I agree with some users who think about changing POS to POW or vise-versa and consider which is more efficient in terms of power consumption.

Very reasonable, they use electricity mostly from hydroelectricity, solar power, using wind energy.  If you say that Bitcoin consumes a large amount of energy, this makes more sense.  Bitcoin mining creates a lot of electronic waste for the environment.  For example, old motherboards are damaged, broken asic machines are often removed immediately, graphics cards can be used to serve gamers.

Price pollution? Is that correct? Just before this thread contineus, I just need to check, you're going with "price pollution"?

Bitcoin is not consuming anything, it is the miners hoping to reap the last profits, while the whole mining ecosystems gradually becomes less and less profitable, which fixes "the problem" by itself (no intervention).

Furthermore not all mining is using energy from carbon emissions. Many farms are using hydroelectric power, which in some places is plenty and overabundant.

There is no need to "take responsibility", and no one can, its code running a program as intended, and its working beautifully even outside its scope of execution. Bitcoin doesn't care if many or few people mine it, humans do, because its profitable, and they will stop, when it isn't (soon). Then you'll end with a lot of unused electrical capacity, which will come handy for the next stage in electric vehicle use...

And, if/when humanity manages to conquer fusion nuclear generation, price of energy will drop so hard the economy will have to reshape itself (and may even bring bitcoin mining back to becoming profitable for a little while).

Anyway you shouldn't be thinking "intervene" and just wait it out. The market is solving the issue by itself. Besides, Bitcoin was designed so it can't be "intervened" so easily, those very miners and nodes have a say on the matter, for every tiny little change done to its code.

The idea of electricity consumed by bitcoin mining is bigger than a small country's consumption somehow one sided. Of course it will result to that. Because you've combined all miners around the world's electricity consumption then just comapared it to a one small country. I don't think that's a fair comparison.
One way to stop burning carbon is to stop using electricity. But can we survive without electricity? No. It's not bitcoin's fault why there is too much carbon footprint. I think it would be easier to create solutions about it if the government accepts bitcoin so they'll be responsible finding solutions.

I didn't pay for the earth either, that doesn't mean I don't care about it. And that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to discuss it.

Fair enough, in my opinion it still uses too much energy for the utility it provides, but that's just my opinion.

Sure, I don't agree with their energy consumption either

I'm not telling people to do anything, just opening discussion about this issue. I'm very glad that it is using large amounts of renewable energy. I even mentioned that in my OP as a possible solution.

It is used to generate hashes until a hash with a sufficient difficulty is found. But I'm sure you can find a better, more technical correction of my basic explanation. Thanks for adding to the discussion, I do appreciate it.

1. That's not your energy, someone else paid for it.
2. It's already been demonstrated on this page that it doesn't use much energy (inane comparisons like "as much as Luxemburg" notwithstanding)
3. If you want to tell people to stop using energy, maybe target something destructive that uses far more energy than Bitcoin i.e. the military
4. It's also been demonstrated that Bitcoin uses a high amount of renewable energy, you just seem to have moved the goalposts and now just want to tell people what to do with their own stuff


also, I suspect you don't know what the energy in Bitcoin mining is used for

I'm not trying to imply there is a relationship between them. I am just saying that the bitcoin network uses a lot of energy. And I'm also saying the bitcoin network doesn't verify many transactions. I am well aware that the energy consumption can 10x or 0.1x any time without the tx count changing. The relationship between them (or it's non-existence for that matter) doesn't matter to me.

Again, please, instead of saying I am wrong, add your opinion. Or add the right facts, to correct my wrong ones. I'm sure you have a interesting opinion on this subject, you have been around this space for a long time.

It comes down to proposing an BIP that changes BTC proof of work (PoW) algorithm away from sha256. For this to work and to maintain network stability you can either make it computationally expansive or memory expansive or bandwidth expensive. There are alternative known as proof of stake, but its indirect effect incentive for securing the BTC transaction network cannot be underestimated. PoW shouldn't be that easy, because if its so then its no W)ork.

You raise good points which need to be considered.

On the plus side, mining is become more energy efficient with time, and will likely continue to do so, so a doubling in hashrate does not equate to a doubling in energy requirements. For illustration, an Antminer S1 will give you 180 GH/s for 360 watts, so 180 GH per 360 joules, or 0.5 GH/joule. An Antminer S17 will give you 50 TH/s for 2,100 watts, so 50,000 GH per 2,100 joules, or 23.8 GH/joule. So the most recent Antminers are almost 50x more efficient than the older models. Obviously there is a very heterogenous set of mining equipment which is currently active, but a doubling in hashrate likely represents a far smaller increase in energy demands.

Also on the plus side are the reports which suggest a large proportion of bitcoin mining uses renewable energy, which again, is likely only to increase. Mining is driven by profits, and long-term renewable energy is far cheaper than continuing to use coal or other non-renewables. If the world eventually transitions to 100% renewable energy by the year 2050 or whatever the most recent targets are, then the energy consumption of the bitcoin network becomes almost irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it uses 10% of global electricity if electricity production is essentially unlimited (until the sun burns out).

the hash rate has roughly doubled since that comparison was made 5 months ago. i'm not sure you're accounting for this level of growing mining expenditure.


that's only true during the wet season.

just playing devil's advocate.....

I support every effort to protect environment, no matt how snall it might seem. I'm aware that Bitcoin mining and Bitcoin transactions are energy consumers and thus also producers of polution for our planet. But we also contribute to that by sending emails, using banking transaction and similar so it's really hard to find the balance. between progress and ecology. Though U think it's not impossibe, there must be a solution but I'm not sure that Bitcoin users or miners are the right address to start with.

wrong again, it's not correct in any way shape or form



no it doesn't



Which part of "those 2 things have no relationship to each other" do you not understand



but clearly you don't get it, because you'd stop saying they're related to each other if you did

Fair point, putting the energy consumption in function of amount of transactions may not be completely correct. However it does give a good perspective on how massive the consumption actually is, it gives the number meaning.

If you want a more correct number, here it is: The Bitcoin network uses an estimated 73 TWh per year while only verifying 100 million transactions.

I know full well that more mining != more transactions. Instead of attacking my knowledge on Bitcoin (which is more than 1 article) please provide your opinion on this issue and contribute to the discussion. Thanks

Current consumption is something that is the result of the first 10 years of Bitcoin, so although it is impossible to predict how much electricity will be needed on an annual basis after another 10 years, can we say that consumption will reach about 1% of total world consumption? Whether it is a lot or a little depends on how you look at it, and who makes the judgments about it. Some already blame Bitcoin mining for global warming and pumping numbers trying to portray Bitcoin in a negative light.

I may be wrong, but a good part of the world still lives pretty much isolated on technology today (no Internet, TVs, washing machine, microwave...) and I am sure that in the future they will contribute to even greater consumption of electricity. The fact is that all electrical devices in the world consume double-digit more electricity in standby mode than it is spent on mining in one year. Added to this is the fact that the largest mining farms are located near hydroelectric power plants, and that the electricity they use is largely surplus.

that's incorrect

Transactions aren't related to the amount of energy used to mine, if that was true then:


...which is 100% wrong

energy used in mining only finds the next block. It's trivial to demonstrate this; every once in a while, a block is found with 0 transactions processed in it. That block is subject to the same threshold requirement as all the blocks before and after it (during the ~ 2 week window where the difficulty of finding a new block is static).


I would suggest actually reading more than 1 article about bitcoin mining before you venture strong opinions on the subject publicly, as you've ended up repeating a whole string of statements that are factually wrong, not just this one