Hacker News Reader

Comment by politician | Hacker News Reader

Food for thought: 65% of bitcoin mining occurs in China [1], China is still building nuclear reactors [2], there are millions of tonnes of uranium reserves on the planet [3].

Just focusing on PoW via nuclear power production, we can power the Bitcoin blockchain for centuries, if not millenia, on clean nuclear energy. This hand-wringing about Bitcoin PoW is hysterically overblown, and amounts to a proxy argument about our inability to generate clean energy while ignoring our ability to generate clean energy.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-b...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r...

View on HN

On the other hand, if we were not doing Bitcoin, we could use that nuclear power for something else, like replacing coal plants...

BTC is quickly becoming a scapegoat for actual issues.

We are producing tons of useless plastic crap thrown out almost imidietely at the purchase. Roughly half of food get throw away. But thats not an issue. Same case for cities not fiendly towards mass transit force huge polution and waste of petrol etc etc.

But only if BTC were dead the global warming would stop and there would be no crime.

This is a logical fallacy. One needs to get-rid-of ALL "proof of work" crypto-"currencies"

AND

get-rid-of single-use plastics, half of food waste etc.

There is no singular silver bullet that will tackle our environmental problems including the climate emergency.

I realize that there is a lot of cognitive dissonance on this particular topic and I'll flat-out state that this is a conflict of interest.

I did not say that. Only that BTC is being used as a distraction from actual issues. As a vector for apathy to not do anything with global warming.

We have so much uranium that we can do Bitcoin AND everything else.

We have the uranium. Do we have the nuclear plants? No? Not yet? Then today, we can't burn all that electricity mining Bitcoin without it requiring burning more coal.

We don't exclusively burn coal to secure bitcoin and China uses a combination of power generation technologies to power its electrical grid. To imply that it's all coal is just wrong.

Yes, shut down the coal plants today, but you'll be cancelling more than Bitcoin PoW. So what are you really mad about? Bitcoin or Coal?

For goodness sakes, if these activists win at cancelling Bitcoin, all they've accomplished is extending the lifetime of coal-fired power generation. Yay?

I am not saying to shut down coal plants today, and I deny you the right to put words in my mouth.

What I am doing is pushing back on your original argument, which was that China has nuclear plants and we have lots of uranium, so it's fine to waste enormous amounts of energy mining Bitcoin.

My position is this: Today we have nuclear plants and coal plants, and we waste energy mining Bitcoin. It is a strictly better world where we have the same number of nuclear plants and fewer coal plants, and use the exact same amount of energy minus the amount that we spend on Bitcoin.

I strongly suspect that the incremental energy load of mining Bitcoin is coming from coal plants, not nuclear plants. (If anyone has hard data, I would welcome it.) If my suspicion is correct, then claiming that China has nuclear plants is irrelevant, since they aren't producing the electricity that's being spent mining Bitcoin.

I think we should shut down Netflix because it is a huge waste of energy that could be better repurposed elsewhere. Who are you to say Netflix is more useful than Bitcoin?

It's completely useless to assign loads to specific power generation schemes in countries that operate off of grids. Unless you're an aluminum smelter.

Is that actually happening? Is it on track to happen?

The same people who lament the energy usage of PoW have also been stirring up FUD against nuclear. I said that the outrage about Bitcoin is a proxy for lamenting the lack of clean energy while also ignoring or resisting our current, proven ability to generate clean energy.

Are you sealioning?

I question your observation.

Currently, POW "currencies" burn real coal, divert energy from production applications like metal smelting, monopolize cheap renewables on-site (like Niagara falls) due to the way the markets reward BTC, which, in my opinion, is ridiculous. 60k for a slice of Ponzi pie?

Cognitive dissonance due to vested interests.

DO YOU OWN POW CRYPTO-"CURRENCIES"? - put that in your full disclaimer, please. It colors your output.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com