I'm not sure about all this "Bitcoin is killing the planet" stuff. Obviously it takes a LOT of energy, but isn't it the energy companies' fault for not using renewable forms of energy?
You could also say me boiling the kettle is killing the earth, but thankfully I've never heard anyone say that.
> No, by buying and using energy that isn't produced in a sustainable way you too are responsible for the damage it does.
We'll have to disagree on that one. If the energy companies won't invest in the greener solution, I don't see how people consuming that energy can be blamed.
As much as I hate miners, blaming them for the disaster that is the energy industry is wrong.
Of course you are partially responsible for everything you are spending money on, whether it is energy or blood diamonds. That is hardly controversial. If you wouldn't spend the money, it wouldn't be produced.
And no one is demanding that you should stop using energy completely because you only can buy dirty energy, but you can choose to use less of it, by not using it for something that so far only have proved to be a huge Ponzi scheme. In many parts of the world you can choose to pay more for cleaner energy. But that would of course reduce the profit from mining.
Bitcoin is designed to waste as much energy as possible. Even if the energy companies waved a magic wand and had a huge amount of renewable energy onboard tomorrow, the end result would be the miners would continue to consume the energy from fossil fuels, but they would also consume all the renewable energy too.
>Other bitcoin alternatives have been less successful at limiting their environmental footprint. Chia, a cryptocurrency that is built on a “proof of time and space” algorithm, has been accused of leading to shortages in hard drives and SSDs, a type of storage medium popular in fast computers. “Instead of just wasting electricity, Chia chews through SSDs at a fantastic rate and also has thoroughly wrecked the market for big HDs,” said David Gerard, a cryptocurrency expert.
This part is at least disingenuous. The real movement away from PoW is in PoS coins but all they say is that it 'ha[s] been less successful' citing the worst that has come out and from a small project at that, and mentioning ETH's slow move to it as if there aren't other projects already using it.
Current comments seem to be responding to the wrong topic. This article is not at all about energy use, but about mining hardware lifetime and resulting eWaste. Which seems like a legit argument, and harder to dismiss with "but it uses renewable energy".
As soon as I read the article, this clicked immediately, but I foolishly had never considered it before.
About five minutes before this comment, I just bought the new iPhone. And, no doubt, many people, perhaps rightly, would criticize the yearly upgrade. A coin functions at a much much larger waist scale than my yearly upgrade. Kind of mind-boggling the more I try and wrap my head around it.
I'm sure you know it but it has to be said that the "it uses renewable energy" argument is the dumbest argument ever. That means it takes renewable energy reserves away from something useful like replacing coal, gas etc. If we were already at 100% renewable energy then sure... but at this point in time it's just the dumbest argument ever.
That your market logic. The more demand the more incentivised production is. That's a spin on the famous example breaking windows, so later your business can set new glass panes.
In practical terms you are talking about planned obsolescence exactly the same thing. Companies make product so the last no more then X years, even though they could last way longer.
You are forced to buy a inferior product because all companies conspire not to produce longer lasting goods.
In your example its like buying an apple and being force to throw it away after one bite.
>it takes renewable energy reserves away from something useful
Not necessarily true because energy transport and storage can be a serious issue that makes other usages impractical. Bitcoin mining can be done at the energy source regardless of the location.
So they compare the two iPhones because of the weight. But are they also comparing it with design and intricacy. I know we're talking about ASICs here. But I wonder what's more complicated (by a factor of 10), an iPhone or ASICs? I have no clue, I don't even know what the acronym ASIC stands for (I guess IC = integrated chip, A = autonomous? S = single? That's my guess anyway).
Ah, Application-specific integrated circuit. 1 out of 4!
Monero addresses this by using an ASIC-resistant proof of work algorithm: general purpose hardware is used for mining, which won't just be thrown away because it can be sold and used for other purposes
The current algorithm takes a completely different approach compared to when there were failures several years ago. It's not marketing, people have been rightfully sceptical but it seems like it works
35 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadYou could also say me boiling the kettle is killing the earth, but thankfully I've never heard anyone say that.
But as others already have pointed out, this is not what the article is about.
We'll have to disagree on that one. If the energy companies won't invest in the greener solution, I don't see how people consuming that energy can be blamed.
As much as I hate miners, blaming them for the disaster that is the energy industry is wrong.
And no one is demanding that you should stop using energy completely because you only can buy dirty energy, but you can choose to use less of it, by not using it for something that so far only have proved to be a huge Ponzi scheme. In many parts of the world you can choose to pay more for cleaner energy. But that would of course reduce the profit from mining.
This part is at least disingenuous. The real movement away from PoW is in PoS coins but all they say is that it 'ha[s] been less successful' citing the worst that has come out and from a small project at that, and mentioning ETH's slow move to it as if there aren't other projects already using it.
These days climate change and pollution is in everyone's minds. Can't blame us for lashing out at wasteful practices.
I think cryptocurrencies get more hate here that electron apps here, and that's saying something.
About five minutes before this comment, I just bought the new iPhone. And, no doubt, many people, perhaps rightly, would criticize the yearly upgrade. A coin functions at a much much larger waist scale than my yearly upgrade. Kind of mind-boggling the more I try and wrap my head around it.
That your market logic. The more demand the more incentivised production is. That's a spin on the famous example breaking windows, so later your business can set new glass panes.
In practical terms you are talking about planned obsolescence exactly the same thing. Companies make product so the last no more then X years, even though they could last way longer.
You are forced to buy a inferior product because all companies conspire not to produce longer lasting goods.
In your example its like buying an apple and being force to throw it away after one bite.
But hey, at least we're incentivizing the farming industry!
Yes, I am somehow missing the point. Whats this counter argument about?
Oil is finite and becomes exponentially harder to extract/find.
Not necessarily true because energy transport and storage can be a serious issue that makes other usages impractical. Bitcoin mining can be done at the energy source regardless of the location.
Ah, Application-specific integrated circuit. 1 out of 4!
Sage.
Pebbles have nothing to do with the discussion of human consumption and what constitutes waste.