Global Bitcoin Mining Data Review [pdf]
bitcoinminingcouncil.com
bitcoinminingcouncil.com
And, through the magic of the Bitcoin protocol, that efficiency gain does not translate at all into energy savings. The Bitcoin incentive structure means that if mining becomes 100x more efficient tomorrow, you should just mine 100x more by spending the same amount of energy.
In effect as more efficient hashing becomes possible and comes on line, the hash rate required to win the block also increases, canceling any efficiency gains.
Efficiency is expressed as hashes/energy, not as coins/energy. As efficiency increases, security increases too.
Also, this formulation of "security" is very misleading. For the layperson, security means the probability of not losing my money. For the cryptographer it means the amount of random guessing you would need to break encryption. So every system that uses the same kind of encryption is equally secure.
If the honest miners put more energy in, dishonest miners must outspend them. It increases network security.
It is precious and worth every Joule.
I see how bitcoin can help countries with rampaging inflation, but saying it's "precious", that's overreaching.
How is it you probably have very good context in terms of adoption curves, cost curves, and generally the ability to see the future better than the average person, but when it comes to Bitcoin/energy creation, there is no effort?
Of course mining is going to use the cheapest energy available right now. We subsidize fossil fuel industry and we don't utilize carbon taxes.
But solar power, wind power, renewables, are now the cheapest sources of energy in the world, and in all of history and will presumably only get cheaper (https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth).
Capacity gets built out when demand exceeds supply. Capacity is also a larger upfront cost. Low hanging fruit gets picked first.
So project 10 years, 25 years, and 50 years out from now. The first Tesla Roadster came out in 2008, 13 years ago. In 2008 people laughed at the idea of electric cars, now its abundantly clear that electric cars will be the only cars of the future. It took time for manufacturing capacity and technical improvements for the right scale to occur. You're living in 2008 saying "what evidence is there for an electric car market? That goes against the current evidence of all these ICE auto sales we currently have."
At the same time when you posit a counterintuitive idea, you have to at the very least give some evidence that it actually happens in the real world. No such specific evidence is presented. No one who doesn't hold Bitcoin says that Bitcoin is good for the environment. The only people who insist such a possibility are heavily invested into Bitcoin. This is very suspicious at the very least.
The evidence is first principles behavioral economics. If renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy (which is easily verifiable, and true), then it will become the majority source of energy not just for mining, but the world.
Nothing is actually "good" for the environment; human existence is inherently "bad" for the environment. But rapid infrastructure capacity change from fossil fuel power plants to renewable power plants would be a good thing. Bitcoin provides the most profitable/easiest way of monetizing energy; and so it fits that Bitcoin mining will be major buyers of renewable energy, should it be available. That improves profitability of renewable investments, lowers break even payback time, and generally supports renewable industry.
If you don't care about Bitcoin, you don't care to defend it against untrue or unbalanced criticisms, that's why you only hear these defenses from Bitcoiners, or people who actually care to take the time to study and understand. Its not suspicious, its very common sense. When was the last time you invested time in understanding and then arguing online about something you didn't care about?
Shouldn't we be capturing co2 or warming up children in need instead?
> Shouldn't we be capturing co2 or warming up children in need instead?
Your suggestions on how to spend electricity (aka resources or money) are great, but whose paying for it? Are you suggesting governments commandeer the electricity/power generation market and become responsible for rationing electricity to the public?
Also, what good is the added capacity if it's being used up by bitcoin? Everything you pour into btc isn't going into an EV.
But so you think using more energy will solve our energy problems. Sorry, but that's stupid. It's like thinking using more money will solve your money issues. Or using more water will solve you water issues.
It just doesn't work like that.
You may think "but solar panels create electricity from something that comes from outside the planet, therefore it is unlimited."
And yeah, there's some truth to it.
On the other hand, if we capture that energy and turn it into heat, which is essentially what bitcoin does, we're adding heat to the planet that, as you would have pointed out, wouldn't stay here in the first place.
So yeah, unlimited energy from the sun, limited capacity of the planet to soak it up before we all die.
Seriously, proof of work must die. And proof of stake... well... as far as I understand, it's no better than boring old fiat currency.
PS: oh, and if you think that merely writing on a technology forum grants you "the ability to see the future better than the average person", boy you're mistaken. Or at least I foresee a different future than you do.
The new capacity replaces the old capacity, which replaces fossil fuel power plants, which eliminates carbon emission output.
> On the other hand, if we capture that energy and turn it into heat, which is essentially what bitcoin does, we're adding heat to the planet that, as you would have pointed out, wouldn't stay here in the first place.
I think you need to review some physics, the sun's rays are already hitting the planet, causing "heating". This is inconsequential because it dissipates naturally. Capturing the sunlight and turning it into energy in no way introduces more energy to the planetary equilibrium. The problem is carbon emissions causing feedback mechanisms by trapping heat.
So if miner's collectively spend $X on energy to mine the next block, it doesn't matter whether that buys them one hash or a trillion hashes - someone looking to mine a parallel chain would just have to spend $(X+1) at the same hashes/energy efficiency.
46% of the bitcoin network is controlled by 36 private for-profit companies, that are represented by this "bitcoin mining council" that's pushing this PR piece to protect their interests
So, a measly 36 for-profit companies control nearly 50% of the "currency" that is supposed to replace all other currencies
You better believe they will try to do everything they can to protect their money minting empire.