Is there any more to discuss on the topic of Bitcoin being outrageously wasteful? Or is this pretty much the final word?
Is Bitcoin figuratively, and almost literally, a tire fire?
Is there any more to discuss on the topic of Bitcoin being outrageously wasteful? Or is this pretty much the final word?
Is Bitcoin figuratively, and almost literally, a tire fire?
My opinion is that if you find this outrageous then you don't understand the core principles of Bitcoin. The difficulty of mining a block on the network goes up with the amount of mining being done to maintain a constant block mining rate.
There are massive bitcoin mining warehouses in China, and for each one that opens all of them are less effective at mining, but still consume the same amount of energy.
So, yeah, it's pretty much a tire fire.
Edit: to add to this, many industries can use technology to produce more value with less energy. Bitcoin is fundamentally unable to do this for the same reasons I mentioned above. When bitcoin specific mining hardware first came out, it briefly gave an advantage to the first people to have it, but then the advances were completely neglected when they became widespread.
The stripped down reason you see it as wasteful is that you have some set of beliefs about what is "right" and "meaningful" (many of which, I'll take liberty to say, most likely likely NOT consciously thought out) and since the core technical principle behind Bitcoin is simple enough, it's easy for you to see it does something that seemingly does not contribute to the fulfillment of what you consider "meaningful" (i.e. performing tons of computation that essentially compute nothing "meaningful").
Technical principles behind markets, industries or your own existence are not simple enough, so you cannot see through them and decide at a glance that they are "wasteful". And since you generally avoid falling into philosophical discussions (rightfully so), this is good enough for you. This doesn't mean that they achieve something that will turn out "obviously meaningful" to you (I'm cynical enough to assume they actually not), it's all just too complicated to tell at a glance.
If this is all too abstract, I'm saying that Bitcoin is actually doing something, and this something is much more complicated than the technical principle you can easily see behind it. You should take this into consideration when thinking about what this giant CO₂ emitting machine actually is. It is not a machine for computing hashes, as it might seem from a purely technical perspective.
PoW utilizes the honest indicator of un-forgeable expense to mitigate this class of risks.
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/financi...
In comparison the search engine market is 170 billion. If a google sized company or decentralized network could reduce the 2 trillion global spend on payments to 170b, that would be fantastic regardless of how much it spends on preventing double spends.
Bitcoin is just one settlement layer. There is no reason for my day to day transactions to settle there. My day to day payments can be settlement on a chain with much higher throughput and faster finality and different security assumptions.
There is also no reason why I can't lend my funds to 100m user credit cards directly without a middleman through software either.
So whats the cost comparison of moving $100,000 out of China into the the US via bitcoin vs the traditional banking system?
There was some error with the debit card system where it wouldn't accept my card, then when the cashier rebooted the device, it informed me that my account balance was insufficient. Sure enough, checking my balance I see that somehow the first try "stuck" into the system as a 'pre-authorization' -- inexplicably unusable money. The bank just shrugged, it would fix itself in two weeks.
I stopped paying with plastic. Fear the day the ATM fails to produce the bills yet drains my account.
Which makes bitcoin an even bigger joke because on a per transaction basis (one that includes miner subsidies) bitcoin costs several orders of magnitude more and cannot even deliver the same basic features that mainstream fiat offers.
Saying that you can transact fiat cheaply is a silly comparison: bitcoin can be transacted for free as well. It is flawed to compare the fractional expense of maintaining the entire system for Bitcoin against any value but the fractional cost of maintaining the entire financial sector: comparing against the cost to consumer without accounting for the system maintenance costs is fallacious.
It's not like it is free to have a system like that!
To be clear: if you ask my opinion on technical side of Bitcoin, I wouldn't be really praising it. But, as I said already, Bitcoin is not a technical thing. It is a very complicated sociocultural phenomena that definitely did achieve something. And you need to consider everything X is, to apply words such as "wasteful" to X.
Again, if this seems too abstract: if you are living in the USA, you are consuming twice more energy (per capita) than Japanese people, having lower life expectancy (both are far from the ends of the spectrum, BTW). So, the existence of USA citizens is wasteful.
Now, doesn't stripping down all the nuance of living different lives in different countries seem a bit outrageous to you? It surely does seem so to me.
Bitcoin is a drain on the electrical system. You are basically arguing that it is okay to litter because it will create jobs and spawn new anti-litter technology.
Doesn’t work that way, sorry.
This type of argument goes nowhere fast.
I’ve never seen an article like this for the entire crypto space as a whole but I imagine it is much, much worse.
The carbon estimate seems very poor.
> Since we know the average emission factor of the Chinese grid (around 700 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour), this can be used for a very rough approximation of the carbon intensity of the power used for Bitcoin mining.
The reason many miners are in China is that they can access cheap off-grid renewable sources of energy there, such as excess hydroelectric, so using an on-grid CO2 estimate doesn't work.
Setting aside the non-trivial ecological damage caused by dams.... all that renewable energy could have been used to power something that actually adds value to society. Instead it is getting flushed down the toilet solving useless math problems so that a relative handful of people can milk a larger set of rubes for all their money. Oh, and enable criminals to continue their criminal behavior....
If the miners are using excess production, then by definition, that power could not have been used for anything else; otherwise, some consumer in the grid would have used it!
> The table below features a breakdown of the energy consumption of the mining facilities surveyed by Hileman and Rauchs. By applying the emission factors of the respective country’s grid
You just need to read.
> Setting aside the non-trivial ecological damage caused by dams..
I don't think anyone is claiming that the dams were built to mine Bitcoins. The power generation was provisioned to power towns, but it is generating more electricity than the towns can use or profitably transport away.
> all that renewable energy could have been used to power something that actually adds value to society.
There is a market to buy the energy. If anyone wanted it for basically any other purpose, the price would increase and the miners would presumably go anywhere else in the world with overprovisioned renewable energy, so that their profit can be preserved. Mining doesn't have many requirements: it doesn't even need to be on-grid. It's created an arbitrage market for cheap electricity, and people will search out the cheapest electricity in the world to use for it. By definition, the cheapest electricity will be the least wanted.
The block reward is 12.5 BTC (and fees are neglible), which is $100000. There's a new block every ~15 minutes, which means 35000 blocks per year. ($100000 * 35000 / 73 TWH) = $0.048/KWH. So miners spend at most $0.05 per KWH on electricity. Assuming they spend 60% on electricity, they spend ~$0.03 per KWH, so not an outrageous price.
The problem is BTC grew too big too fast. The block reward is very large, but once it drops to the magnitude of fees ($2000 / block), we'll probably see a decrease in the energy usage to the (perceived?) value of decentralized payment system.
Also, this shows the need for governments to drastically increase taxes on carbon producing forms of electricity.
Which will disproportionately hurt the poor.
Its not the final word, but it is something to vigilantly monitor in case the following changes:
Most bitcoin energy use is from mining, and that mining uses renewable energy or energy waste byproducts. Source: my experience with mining companies that don't publicly disclose how they do this profitably.
So for now, try to corroborate it yourself. I would say that 70-80% of bitcoin mining is not a wasteful use of energy and that merely estimating the energy numbers doesn't tell you anything about the source. What I mean by "not wasteful" means that it isn't pulling away from another use of energy that was ever going to happen.
This wasted energy is usually in the form of byproducts around other power facilities that cannot be economically converted and transported to residential and commercial areas. This is where bitcoin mining shines: Bitcoin mining does not need a robust internet connection and does not need to occur in residential or commercial areas. A computer with a satellite connection can submit hashes to the bitcoin network, and pools further make it practical to have lower latency, because they merely pay out based on your contribution to the pool.
So miners that use energy waste byproducts (converting those byproducts to electricity at the source and taking transformers there) often times are doing a favor to the power company or whoever is there.
What to monitor: if nation states start competing over power of this network, they may disregard the economic feasibility of doing so, and then it will be incredibly wasteful uses of electricity.
Without explicit evidence of a market failure it's probably fine to assume that negative externalities are factored into sticker price of goods as the opportunity cost of product X eventually must take into account those externalities as applied to everyone.
The problem with KYC and banking laws are that you can prevent anyone from conducting business for any reason. They've not seen abuse per se but people have been caught up in them with no recourse. Their application in reality may see them ruled unconstitutional.
Bitcoin, then, is just a correction in the other direction. Because face it: large financial institutions still facilitate money laundering, just not for small people.
No one forces you to have a bank account, just like no one forces you to have a driver's license - which also involves giving up some rights, btw.
The constitution recognizes the inherent right to be secure in your personage and effects. This should include your financial information.
I think it odd that people accept the abrogation of their rights w.r.t. driving. Yes, the government can definitely tax you for road use, but imagine having to carry an ID around that proved you paid your income tax, and that you were required to be IDable at almost all times to be sure you were not committing tax evasion.
Cost of running this public tamper-proof database is $4B + Personnel + Amortizing cost of ASIC Forms, Say $6B
Where does the money come from? This Database isn't selling any service to Enterprise or Government or Public to get revenue. So, the $6B money has to come from Bitcoin holders or new suckers.
Every year it has to get $6B new money just to maintain the current value of Bitcoin.
The question is not how many you burned, which is what the mining algo answers with such precision, but how much you paid for them in the first place, which it can offer no insight into.
Some possible shortcuts to paying retail prices for electron mining fuel:
1. You're a large business power customer and pay vastly discounted rates on a contract basis.
2. You're stealing some or all of your power, either by pirate wiring or by paying some official to look the other way, or a little of both.
3. Your mining operation is a pork barrel project with funding secured from your local government's (either clueless or remarkably pragmatic) business development office. Sometimes there may be a legitimate exit plan for this, like repurposing the new datacenter facility you built, after wringing every mining penny from it possible, to host cloud services or as the core of some government-sponsored technology park.
4. You may have been mining quite along time and now have enough early coin held back from the $100 days to slowly sell off into the retail market at 80x profit, or borrow against. It may even be that this reserve of held back coin is partly responsible for the thin liquidity in the market, and consequent bubbled-up price.
5. You publicly, or covertly own or have an interest in one or more of the mining pools and public exchanges, and retain a share some of the Tx and conversion fees which helps subsidize the mining costs.
6. Same as above but for mining rig manufacturers and fabs. Mine on newly manufactured chips for a few days or a week before shipping (for 'testing' purposes ofc) and you get to stay ahead of the difficulty curve as well as get free subsidy from your own customers.
If (and big if) bitcoin is able to replace a significant fraction of the banking industry it will be extremely efficient in comparison. Per-transaction measures isn't the right metric since the Bitcoin blockchain can still be successful as a reconciliation backbone without being used for small everyday purchases.
Wires cost me $50+ because of intermediary banks, even if I don't pay anything at my own bank, someone is getting a big cut.
Every bitcoin exchange I’ve used required me to physically write something on paper and show it to a human, so it seems like the human labor in the banking system is a regulatory issue, not a technical one.
I'm curious - what did you have to write? Is it just part of proof of identity, or something more?
The infrastructure required for functional cryptocurrency usage in society is far smaller than for traditional money, so with enough adoption to supersede fiat, there would be efficiency gains.
Remember, we used to need the phone network to connect to the internet. 30 years later, the trend is reversed and it's telephone that we layer on top of the internet.
The article actually answers this to some degree. See the following graphic: https://i.imgur.com/8TdKevG.png
So I don't think "mining gold" is an appropriate analogy.
EDIT: Case in point: how much did it cost for Visa + Bank to increase a credit-card from $500 credit limit to $2000 credit limit? $1500 of credit appeared out of thin air.
The first credit limit increase "from scratch" costs hundreds of billions of dollars in creating a system of legal compliance, accounting, communication, internal and external risk management, executive compensation, regulatory oversight, credit ratings, cybersecurity, salaries of millions of workers, building public trust in the credit system, writing and passing legislation, even Fed responsibility of building and maintaining a fiat currency.
The second credit limit increase once this system exists is essentially free.
To what extent do these costs need to be accounted for in creating an accurately comparable 'per transaction' metric? By replacing much of the logic with 'just math', Bitcoin has the potential for a much higher theoretical efficiency than the current banking system. Whether market penetration will ever reach the current banking systems levels - and function without replicating these same structures - is certainly highly debatable and for many of the above items implausible.
Bitcoin transactions in isolation are also essentially free - it's the maintenance of the system which keeps it secure and trustworthy that is expensive.
As such, the question is interesting: how much energy required to produce one new ounce of gold? vs one bitcoin?
From the US Mint's financial statement [1]:
2017 cost $13.5 million dollars in "Communications, utilities, and misc charges", which presumably is the bucket that electricity bills falls under. There's no breakdown of overhead between currency coinage production and bullion/numismatic production, but the manufacturing obligation suggests that currency is roughly ⅕ of their total costs, which suggests that we might ascribe about $3 million in utility cost to produce coinage. The coins themselves were worth about $870 million, which suggests about 250 kJ (or 0.07 kWh) per $1 of coinage if we assume the Mint pays $0.05/kWh. I'm not including the energy cost of metal production itself, because I don't want to spend the time to track down that information.
[1] https://www.treasury.gov/about/budget-performance/CJ19/23.%2...
Neither is Bitcoin, so it should be a perfectly valid comparison?
With something like lightning network, a single Bitcoin transaction can facilitate millions of 'lightning' transactions.
Can you name a better metric that we can measure?
--------
With regard to the Lightning Network, it seems that it requires a bit of supervision to be secure. https://themoneymongers.com/lightning-network-watchtowers/
That supervision probably will have a cost of some kind.
> You can hire watchtowers nodes for a fee and design the revocation transaction in such a way that the watchtowers will also receive their service fee when you get funds of the other party as a penalty.
So we're adding many, many more middlemen to the picture. Not only do we have to pay for the final transaction (which requires a large amount of electricity to be "mined" into the blockchain), we have to hire watchtowers to ensure that our Lightning Network transactions remain correct even if our counterparty tries to screw with our transaction history. (Remember: the full transaction history in the Lightning network is off-chain).
Being a watchtower is extremely low cost, it only requires a small amount of memory. Every full lightning node is watching the blockchain anyway so it is easy to watch for some extra transaction ids with a certain prefix. Transaction IDs are sufficiently long that only part of the txn ID (half) needs to be shared with the watchtower. The tower can only decrypt and send the revocation txn once the malicious txn is broadcast, and the watchtower reward can be built in to the revocation txn.
How much will watchtower rewards cost?
The economics aren't fully studied. But I'd expect a good watchtower would be proportional to the amount of the transaction. That is, if you wanted to protect a 100 BTC transaction, you'd want to spend more on the watchtower reward than if you wanted to protect a 1 BTC transaction.
Hypothetically, if you spend too little, the watchtower + your opponent can collude to effectively steal some of your money. (Ex: the Watchtower could be paid by your opponent to NOT send the revocation message).
The reward only has to be high enough for it to be worthwhile for other nodes to spend a small amount of memory storing your txn.
In the case of 100x watchtowers watching one transaction, each watchtower only has a 1% chance of actually getting the reward.
There are some services currently providing watchtower for a flat fee instead, and the going rate is low (1 satoshi / txn watched) =~ $ 0.00008
This idea has been around the corner for a while now. How likely is it really, how long will it take, and what will adoption look like? Until it happens and is popular, it seems fair to discuss how much a Bitcoin transaction actually costs...
According to the article, bitcoin consumes about the same amount of electrical energy as Austria, a nation of 8,857,960.
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, ~8.6 million people are employed in "Financial activities" in the US.
BLS: https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-...
It's this wasteful at this level of scaling. That only gets worse.
This encompasses a very large part of the responsibilities of the political system, army, secret service, ...
Those cost centers can't be ignored if the goal is an honest comparison between the energy efficiency of bitcoin vs. fiat.