Hacker News Reader

>Any civilization sufficiently progressing will use more and more energy

Efficiency is still a net good. Even if you don't believe that CO2 in the atmosphere causes climate change, every form of electricity generation has negative side effects for society, including renewables.

Normally the benefits greatly outweigh the costs, but that's not true for proof-of-work systems when considered in light of the alternatives.

>Bitcoin could definitely be more energy efficient

Exactly. One way to do that would be to use something other than proof of work.

>Why are we attacking Bitcoin for using electricity instead of simply pushing for more renewable energy sources?

Because increasing the demand for electricity more than necessary increases the cost to all of us––both the direct economic cost in our electricity bills and the environmental and societal costs. This is true whether the energy is renewable or not.

>At the end of the day it seems to me that any free society that supplies energy as a service shouldn’t be dictating what individuals do with that electricity as long as they pay for it

Wasteful energy use causes problems that society as a whole has to bear. Think about what would happen if we said things like "any free society that permits land ownership should permit nuclear waste disposal on any private property." It just doesn't work out, because society as a whole ends up paying the cost.

> Because increasing the demand for electricity more than necessary increases the cost to all of us––both the direct economic cost in our electricity bills and the environmental and societal costs. This is true whether the energy is renewable or not.

If my mining operation is completely disconnected from the grid, how will that have any impact on grid supply pricing? (not focused on the upfront capital or operational costs, just the mining energy itself)

I wouldn't be worried about off-grid systems personally. That seems like a fair way to reduce the negative side effects.

But, to answer your question, even if 100% of mining were off-grid:

1) Setting up and maintaining a cryptocurrency mining operation still takes up tons of resources, resulting in scarcity and higher prices (see, e.g.: many gamers can't buy GPUs right now)

2) This is likely minor, but the land taken up by your cryptocurrency mining operation could be put to more productive use, even if unmaintained (acting as a carbon sink).

3) Even an off-grid solar operation has many environmental impacts, including all of the on-grid energy that went into making that equipment, all of the pollution caused by manufacture, and all of the use of society's infrastructure that the manufacturing tied up.

> At the end of the day it seems to me that any free society that supplies energy as a service shouldn’t be dictating what individuals do with that electricity as long as they pay for it.

This doesn't compute for me. We can (and do) have a free society that still has regulation. In fact, it's probably necessary for keeping it free.

Regulating resources is also critical---e.g., overfishing, mining, logging, etc.

Finally, I would say it's not the particular usage of electricity that should be banned here, but rather a particular action which currently has a negative* effect on society with no known positives beyond enriching a small number.

* If you want to argue that bitcoin currently has a positive effect on society then that's a separate argument. I'll actually concede if you show proof that its usage is driving solar up to a point that would not have been achievable otherwise, considering that fossil fuels are still predominantly used.

But Bitcoin is not needed. It currently provides little to no positive value to society and a lot of negative value so it is hard to classify it as society progressing.

The positive value is that it protects from inflation.

Inflation is highly important to productive economies. Countries can default when there is no control over their money supply and inflation is needed to avoid stagnation.

All economies eventually fail due to inflation and central planning.

I'm not saying we don't need national currencies, but bitcoin is the perfect hedge against central banking.

Wait how can you make that claim?

Just look back at all of the fallen economies. They fall from inflation.

"Although the Emperor Constantine (reigned AD 306-337) is considered by many to be among the greatest of the later Roman emperors, he was unable to fix the failing Roman economy. The inflation persisted for nearly two hundred more years, during which time taxes were massively increased. Internal problems were further compounded by the economic situation, such as the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands, which often led to mob riots. Eventually, the Roman government was unable to pay its armies, which then often turned their swords on Rome itself. In the end, it was primarily Germanic tribes, such as the Goths and Vandals, who dealt the final death blows to Rome, but that would not have been possible if Rome’s economy were not weakened by a particularly excessive and long lasting inflationary cycle."

https://dailyhistory.org/What_Role_Did_Inflation_Play_in_the...

"The Ottoman economy was disrupted by inflation, caused by the influx of precious metals into Europe from the Americas and by an increasing imbalance of trade between East and West. As the treasury lost more of its revenues to the depredations of the devşirme, it began to meet its obligations by debasing the coinage, sharply increasing taxes, and resorting to confiscations, all of which only worsened the situation."

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ottoman-Empire/The-decline-...

"Wampum is a traditional shell bead of the Eastern Woodlands tribes of Native Americans... Eventually, the Colonists applied their technologies to more efficiently produce wampum, which caused inflation and ultimately its obsolescence as currency."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampum

"The Nazis planned to bomb Britain with clouds of forged bank notes."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonianmag/nazis-planned-...

I could go on and on..

This is the claim.

Unfortunately, macroeconomic theories are more religion than science.

Many things protect from inflation. Any fiat currency can be made completely proof against inflation.

We've just made a judgment as a society that a small amount of inflation is good, in part because it drives economic growth.

I didn't say that there were no alternatives, but just that bitcoin does provide value.

If you are part of the "we", then you got what you wanted I suppose. Everybody who didn't want the inflation were left out.

I could say the same thing about Twitter. The thing is, who gets to decide what types of power usage are "needed" and "not needed?" Clearly you and I have different opinions on the matter.

#2 Is the big one to me. I understand why people attack bitcoin here, but attacking both bitcoin and dirty energy creation is double accounting. People expending that electricity are paying for it. And if they aren't paying for it, we should be fixing that issue, not choosing what they can use with said electricity.

#1, correct. Nothing wrong with energy consumption. In fact, there is a relationship between GDP growth and energy consumption growth, in general. That's not to say we don't need more efficient energy usage, though, but bitcoin has been and always will be driving that forward.

#2, yeah, bitcoin is driving renewable energy innovation. bitcoin demands renewable energy, and the industry must supply it. It's great for the industry. Renewable companies need to embrace it or they will miss out on great growth opportunities.

#3, yes. Bitcoin is moving towards the edge of the grid, looking for the cleanest, cheapest, and most abundant sources of energy.