Is Bitcoin a Waste of Electricity, or Something Worse?
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
If one thinks that the energy can be put to a better use, they can set up a shop next door and start paying slightly more per kWh than the miner, thereby destroying their margins.
In all seriousness, there are many types of power plants, the exact mechanism depends on how the actual energy is produced. It is true that for some renewable energy sources like e.g. solar energy, you cannot regulate production and need to store excess energy. But for fossil fuels, you (roughly) produce by demand.
So the power company has a grid, and they monitor the amount of power generated with the amount of power consumed.
They know this because they have sensors at the substations that can tell how much power is being used.
If too much power is being generated, they can sell the power to another company, or turn off excess capacity.
If not enough power is being generated, they can buy the deficit from another company, or increase the generation.
It's really straightforward.
It depends on the type of plant.
There's a concept in power generation of "base load", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load , which is the minimum usage. Some plants are expensive and slow to start up and shut down. If they're cheaper per kwH, then it makes sense to use them, but only for base load.
Then there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant , which are halfway compromises. They spin up and shut down perhaps twice a day. If load starts falling (or grows more slowly than predicted), these'll definitely get spun up less often. If load rises (faster than predicted), more of these will be used while plans are made to bring up more base load power plants.
Then there're peaker plants, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant . These are expensive but responsive. They spin up and shut down within seconds of a change in demand.
This is all controlled by auctions, at various timescales.
A example that might be popular among the Musk fanboys of HN (e.g. me) would be https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/23/tesla-bat...
The grid is not a battery; generated power in is always close to the current demand output. Any claims that crypto-mining uses "clean" power just indicates the claimant doesn't understand that power is patently fungible[3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant
Gosh this is ridiculous, why do I even have to explain it. If someone starts wasting fire extinguishers by emptying them out a window, do you proclaim that "if one thinks that the fire extinguisher can be put to a better use, they can start using them for that better purpose next door"?
Story 1. I went to Taipei to meet someone from HN. He wanted to pay me back for my train tickets. His American bank card didn't work in the ATM. I suggested, half-jokingly, "Why not Bitcoin?" When he was back in the US, I set up an account, and the transaction was easy.
Story 2. I wanted to donate to a webcomic: http://blog.mixflavor.com/p/donate.html
First I tried PayPal. "We're sorry. You cannot use your PayPal account registered in Taiwan to send payments to, or receive payments from, other PayPal accounts registered in Taiwan."
This lunchtime I went to my bank, to try to make a transfer. The guy at the entrance saw the screenshot, and asked a colleague. She and he then made a phone call. A third person came downstairs, and she spoke English. She couldn't understand the written Chinese, and told me it's not their bank's problem. She told me to go to another bank down the street.
The second bank involved 3 people reading, translating, discussing, searching Google Maps, to then send me on to a third bank.
The third bank had a security guard at the entrance who asked what I was trying to do, and took me to an ATM to make a deposit. He navigated the Chinese-language menus, asked for my phone number, took cash, and finally made the deposit.
It took 45 minutes and 8 people to try to send money to someone, and I was late to come back to the office.
Bitcoin is doing well, not because the blockchain is so hot right now, but because banks are just awful.
But even Bitcoin uses much less energy for transmitting money than bank buildings etc.
So it's all I^2R heat losses.
Bitcoin is a brand new, utterly pointless use of electricity.
Trump did this with the "and mexico will pay for it" addendum to building the wall. By getting people to say "Mexico will never pay for it!" they are mentally conceding the wall.
I dislike these sorts of verbal tactics, but they are effective manipulations.
Similar to teaching people how to hack for the sake of improving computer security, or maybe more similar to the old fantasy trope of the monster / sorcerer or whatever losing it's power if you know it's name. I feel like most people know of these tactics, but they can't call them out effectively, because it's cumbersome and awkward to do so.
Media with positions I agree with do this, I recognize it. It's not going way. NPR likes to say during their pledge drives that they only give us facts... Uhhuh. I mean Innskeep is notorious.
Let's take your example. Is there a documented case of someone who started out being against the wall and then got confused into supporting it by the "Mexico pays" canard? I'd love to see that.
There are various rhetorical tactics and yes they can be effective... but none of them amount to Jedi mind tricks.
edit: to test my assertion, google that phrase. then google it with only results from 2015 or earlier. Scott Adams all the way down.
Maybe I take propositional statements a bit too literally? I don't see the trick, or it's not even a good trick.
Is bitcoin a waste of electricity:
1. No. something worse? No.
2. No. something worse? Yes. <-- doesn't make logical sense.
3. Yes. something worse? No. It's just a waste of elec.
4. Yes. something worse? Yes. <-- really hate bitcoin here
Maybe the better statement is "Bitcoin is worse than wasting electricity"(???) Then the target needs to deny that it's "worse" before considering "waste of electricity".
Thoughts?