Topic: Will energy consumption be Bitcoins downfall ? - page 3. (Read 1698 times)

As for the shortage of energy in the future, it is not only blockchain technology that consumes a large amount of energy in the world, but also big data technology. If you want to combat the culprit of energy consumption, you can't just hold onto the blockchain technology. Moreover, only considering the energy consumption of blockchain mining is obviously not comprehensive. Google information security engineer Marc Bevand believes that miners' demand for energy will stimulate innovation in the field of renewable energy, and blockchain technology is likely to promote the demand for clean energy.

Energy consumption will not lead to the collapse of bitcoin. The production and transportation of banknotes will also consume energy. Since the emergence of banknotes, the energy consumption is no less than that of bitcoin.

Bitcoin mining is mainly in some countries with excess electricity, and mainly in areas with hydropower and solar power generation. Electricity will not be preserved, it can be used to use electricity, so as not to waste electricity.

No, it won't. Because Bitcoin mining won't go on like this by consuming high electricity and using fossil fuels at a high rate. Eventually, we will see it continuing with 100 percent renewable energies. Then, it could even be its rise rather than a "downfall".

I would agree that Bitcoin is not a tap water that needs no ideology/narrative at all...
But when we have a system that thermodynamically is incomparably better than the previous ways of creating and securing money, it should be able to survive even periods of deep pushed into the counterculture zone.
It may be still too early to dream that such periods are over.
Energy consumption of 0.2% of global consumption is met with aggression as if it were at least 20%, and when you try to discuss and explain that mining could facilitate the transition to renewable energy and achieve the goal of a carbon neutral economy, you can easily come across an attitude like "lalalalala, I can't hear you".

your review is very reasonable my friend is very interested in your review the king is still the king whatever happens the king is difficult to replace with more and more enthusiasts, the price of bitcoin is even more soaring because the items that are sought after must be expensive, I also don't agree that bitcoin prices go down because of energy waste .

Like Daniel wrote in his essay on the nakamotoinstitute https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/its-not-about-the-technology-its-about-the-money/ Bitcoin's value is a collective hallucination that derives its value from its narrative, like any other virtual value attribute to something physical.
Bitcoin's success depends on this narrative. If the narrative doesn't connect to the people Bitcoin will be worth nothing.
One of the greatest obstacles in that regard will be the narrative of sustainability, because it is one of the most influential narratives in our time, whether you like or not.
That is why every company that is seriously generating value on the internet (Google, Amazon etc.) has committed itself to act sustainable.
If Bitcoin and its community manages to set the standard in sustainability the narrative of Bitcoin is hardened not weakened and would proof the critics wrong once more. Its an opportunity not a threat.
 

The propaganda of Bitcoin's enemies has little to do with the facts.

And if it does, it will always be an example of a selective, unfair, instrumental approach to facts.

Bitcoin mining is infinitely energy efficient, if you take into account the proportion of incurred energetic cost to benefits.
Each mined bitcoin (representing hardest possible, highest form of money) will serve users until the end of the world, changing owners an infinite number of times.
In an infinitely effective way (i.e. with negligible fees), because mainly with the help of countless L2 solutions, not on L1.
No bitcoin will ever have to be mined again (except for attempted attacks on the network), and the sum of bitcoins mined will never exceed the amount specified in the protocol.
Thanks to merged mining, once a proof of work is made, it can be reused by an unlimited number of other networks (not necessarily monetary ones), with virtually no additional energy expenditure.

This is, of course, the opposite of fiat currencies and PoS altcoins.
The number of units of these currencies increases infinitely and this process will never end, and the energy demand for securing them will also increase forever.
Since traditional financial, control and supervisory systems use energy, and energy is also used to wage trade wars, armed conflicts and to accelerate consumerism (a necessary condition for the survival of any inflationary currency).

And this cannot be stopped unless a Bitcoin standard, similar to the gold standard prevailing before, is adopted.

Since this is the basis of your argument, can you explain where this assumption/fact comes from.

With regard to thermodynamics you create 3.25KW of heat. The only problem is its density and how to extract it most efficiently. Bitcoin is just a nice virtual surplus.

There are already studies about efficient and affordable thermomagnetic materials for harvesting low grade waste heat.

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0033970

Bitcoin as a catalyst of social change is obliged to be at the forefront of these technologies.

exhaust is like 1%

if it was efficient to use heat to create electric from the heat of that same electric device.
then that would be perpetual energy..
however you wont be able to power a kettle perpetually with its own steam.
and thats even when 100% energy is going towards heat production

so when a kettle can use 3.25kw to boil water to 100^o
but an asic that uses 3.25kw to mine only emits a 1^o of heat
it would require over 100 asics to boil a kettle.

i hope you start to see your error in assumption.. if not continue reading
and then the loss of energy in the steam->turbine->electric wire transfer means it would require even more then 100 asics just to power 1 asic

thus the under 1% 'inefficiency' by not using its own heat..

as for millions of watts. aka 1MW.
well asics if all combined in one area is about say 4gwh spent electric(38tw/y). so if all that heat emission was to be re-utilised would create ~20mwh

in short. 1.3mill asics heat emission. if utilised. would only power about 6k asics
0.46%
(i even ignored many factors of conversion to try giving you a over assumed number in your favour. real number is much lower)

hello sir, I think it will come true after we see how broken the market is now, maybe everyone will choose altcoins as a backup, or as a backup when bitcoin is at its lowest price

Mining is just incredibly inefficient. That's a simple fact. Every other industry makes use of its exhaust heat. Miner create millions of watt of exhaust heat unused. That's pretty ridiculous in my opinion if you have a technology these days that is viewed as cutting edge. 

If there are robots that will improve productivity quickly, you can build more power plants ahead of time.

the problem they point out is that the energy that the miners consume boils the ocean because it causes global warming. but we all know this is just a fud.

they thought the higher the energy cost for mining BTC the higher its value. if you think about it, miners not selling their coins in loss because of their bills, then it's how things work. the rate of electricity is regulated by the government. but whatever argument will be, BTC will be valuable. either mined by renewable energy or not because BTC has demand for it can't be confiscated.

There are reports saying that 76% come from renewable energy for Bitcoin, but only 39% for other coins that are PoW. If others switch to POS anyway and Bitcoin increases its renewable energy mining even further, I don't see the energy consumption turn into a problem.

the fall of bitcoin is not an energy problem, but there are other problems that are more serious than that, I think the decline in the price of bitcoin is caused by greedy people, the decline in bitcoin in my opinion cannot be separated from three big numbers, such as the CEO of Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Minister of Finance The United States (US), which has expressed skepticism about digital currency, bitcoin...

you get it

Bitcoin may be using a lot of electric energy and fossil fuels now. But this will change sooner or later. There are already miners who use renewable energy in mining. In the future, Bitcoin miners will start using only renewable energy. So I don't think the current situation could be its downfall.

Wasting solar energy that could go to power homes, schools and infrastructure is NOT the
answer to a simple avoidable problem. The problem is people think wasting energy gives Bitcoin its value. This thinking must change. People give Bitcoin its power NOT power consumption. Bitcoin Mining is an arms race and no one wins except the power companies.

I guess miners will go green someday. They have to adapt. It's just an issue we need to solve.

no not a loss that is Market Share, BTC's overall capture of the $1.7T crypto market or whatever it happens to be at the time. That's actually pretty good for BTC in a show of strength.

Here is some more good news on the Energy front as Gates and Warren put their money into Nuclear power

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/03/bill-gates-warren-buffett-new-nuclear-reactor-wyoming-natrium