Hacker News Reader

Comment by bmcusick | Hacker News Reader

>> and it's no more harmful than any other use of electricity > That's a tautological statement.

Sure, if you take it out of the context of the rest of my comment. But OP asked if Bitcoin would stop being an ecological disaster, and my point is was that Bitcoin's ecological costs are primarily about the source of the electricity, not the amount of electricity.

Bitcoin mining uses about 170 MWe, continuously. That's really not very much in the grand picture of things. A few medium-sized fields of solar panels isn't an "ecological disaster".

View on HN

> That's really not very much in the grand picture of things.

And how does that claim hold up when you compare current level cryptocurrency adoption to the scale of money worldwide?

How does energy usage scale with the number of users in general? Linearly?

> How does energy usage scale with the number of users in general?

You're confusing Bitcoin miners and Bitcoin nodes.

Bitcoin nodes verify transactions. You can run a Bitcoin node off your home PC. It doesn't use much energy.

Bitcoin miners are what use all the energy, and their energy use is driven by the size of the mining rewards not the number of users.

But the size of the mining rewards scales with the value of Bitcoin which roughly scales with the number of users.

> Bitcoin nodes verify transactions. You can run a Bitcoin node off your home PC. It doesn't use much energy.

You basically answered a different question, because this doesn't tell me how it scales

I'm sure I'm off a little bit in my understanding, but I thought part of the idea whole blockchain thing was being a decentralised ledger. How does that scale if everyone is on it? Is the energy use better or worse than a centralised bank, by how much, and is it significant?

It is not very much? How many tons of co2 are produced in 1 hour to get 170MWh?

As others have pointed out, bitcoin mining doesn't tend to happen in places where fossil fuels are used for electricity generation, simply because it isn't profitable to do so.

Instead it tends to gravitate fairly quickly to places that currently have an surplus of energy and therefore extremely cheap power generation.

In the US that is Washington state, near Wenatchee, where the power is the cheapest in the nation: http://www.electricitylocal.com/states/washington/wenatchee/

The reason for that price is that it is all hydro, so no co2 produced. (though depending on how fungible you view power it could be argued otherwise) http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2011/jun/01/cheapest-elec...

But ya, though I agree the amount of power that goes into mining and keeping the blockchain safe is absurd, the crazy competition and economies there have driven most of that to green sources. So yay I guess?

If the power was not wasted in mining it could have been used for something useful therefore reducing the carbon footprint in other places that don't rely so heavily on hydroelectric.

Maybe. See my comment about fungibility. I don't think power transmission costs are insignificant at a distance, and I suspect if it were the case for Wenatchee, Seattle and other large urban centers would happily buy up their cheap power instead of producing their own.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com