Our entire society is based on energy, and our cumulative and per-capita use of it is only trending upwards. Arguing for increased green energy generation helps all electricity users fight climate change, regardless of your perceived morality of their usage of it.
I'm also advocating for more green energy.
And no just because some people like the advantage of crypto doesn't make crisism invalid. To bring up an extreme example for simplicity: smoker like smoking. Heroin addict likes heroin. Fast car driver likes to drive fast.
And yes to finish this: this is a comment from me which states my viewpoint of it. My perceived morality is exactly what I'm commenting with together with arguments. That's the point of a discussion or comments.
It currently uses .1% of global energy, instead of all the worlds energy as predicted in 2017. It makes use of stranded energy, off peak energy stabilizing grid production, incentivizes green energy build outs, and with the landfill methane caputure business will soon be the only digital asset that is carbon negative.
What have you heard? That it is a climate disaster and you should stay away?
ie. about between 300 and a million times more energy than VISA/Mastercard when adjusted to the number of transactions. [0]
> It makes use of stranded energy
Miners who mine 24/7, by definition, do not consume stranded energy. There are no numbers whatsoever that can affirm which part of the miners use stranded energy. On the other hand, when one coal mine got flooded in China last year, 33% of the mining power came to a halt. [1]
> off peak energy stabilizing grid production
So much stabilizing it has caused blackouts in several countries [2]. Texas has resorted to pay miners so they don't cause blackouts [3]
> incentivizes green energy build outs
No, it incentivizes cheap electricity sources. Moreover in the topic of climate change the greenest energy is the one you don't consume.
> with the landfill methane caputure business will soon be the only digital asset that is carbon negative
What? Landfill methane business is basically saying "instead of just burning methane, let's burn it and use the heat to power up some BTC mining". At best, that makes the operation carbon neutral.
If you are trolling, I must say, congrats, you triggered me.
[0] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption [1] https://fortune.com/2021/04/20/bitcoin-mining-coal-china-env... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-25/kazakhsta..., https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59879760, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/26/iran-bans-bitcoin-mining-as-... [3] https://fortune.com/2022/07/12/texas-bitcoin-miners-paid-shu...
I don't tell you what to do with things you buy that I think are useless.
Those who purchase or generate electricity can do so with it as they wish, it is a free market.
You can post all of the articles you want, the innovaters are outpacing the obstructionists as they have been for millennia, it's nothing new under the sun, and progress marches on.
There is no lead paint anymore and no lead in gasoline.
I'm often wondering who is behind those comments. You should be quite aware that there are plenty of counter examples to this 'free market's statement.
And yes there also laws like non smoking to protect others.
Energy can also be shut down for you from the energy ministry if your usage has a risk to the power grid.
About the uselessness point: also not a good point on your side. We all life on one planet. It's absolutely valid to have a discussion like this.
I don't want to help you understand bitcoin, because I don't want insufferable obstructionists having a say in humanity's future.
What you value is cleary different than what I value and that's fine, but there is nothing you can do to stop me from using my preferred value store, and that is exactly the point.
I'm not arguing for people like you who don't care. I argue for everyone who hasn't maid up their minds and want to have real arguments for pro and con.
Without people like me there would be no push back at all and there is active push back.
The power station in NY got much more criticism than it would have gotten otherwise (none).
Very weird your reaction though. Do you'really believe I stop arguing against Bitcoin just because crypto bros don't care for arguments?
This isn't really an apple to apples comparison. Since Bitcoin is a programmable platform, its possible to scale upwards exponentially with layer 2's (Lightning network), which allows for even more tps. Since transactions wouldn't need to run on the main chain (other than opening and closing channels), the upper bound is much higher.
https://d-central.tech/bitcoins-lightning-network-from-seven...
If we incorporate the lightning network, then we must also take into account the electricity to run the servers for the intermediate exchanges etc. On the other hand, one could also lower the fiat electricity cost by factoring in the cash transactions.
TBH i'd be interested to see a reasonable estimation of the BTC+lightning emission costs per transaction, I'll admit I have no idea how much lightning brings the cost down.
Well, it doesn't make sense to scale the main chain in that sort of way, because you'd be looking at blocks the size of several terabytes in order to fit in global scale transactions. And so running a node would then require you to basically run a data center, which wouldn't make the system decentralized at all.
Electricity for mining is also not directly related to transaction throughput. Mining is the arbitrage of bitcoin price and electricity/mining hardware cost. The system technically does not need more electricity to secure the same amount of transactions. What happens is when bitcoin's price goes up, so does that arbitrage value, giving mining a profit incentive.
My comparison would rely on running several bitcoin networks in parallel. Of course it does not make sense economically speaking, but it allows for a back of the envelope estimate.
> Electricity for mining is also not directly related to transaction throughput
This is true, but when you look at the C02 consumption (which was the topic of discussion when I first posted, before my OP decided to completely change subject), the mining cost is what you look for.
Mmmm, I understand you're looking for a convenient way to mathematically equate the two on a per transaction basis for comparison's sake, but its just really difficult. For example, your several bitcoin networks in parallel doesn't really exist, because separate networks running in parallel are not interoperable (Bitcoin vs Litecoin). You lose the utility of network effects, etc.
Its like comparing energy costs of bicycles and ocean freighters, but no amount of bicycles could ever tow freight across an ocean.
Oh yes, you lose a lot of functionalities, but it's not the focus of the computation, simply to estimate, with the current technology, how much it compares to Visa in terms of electricity consumption. To be honest it would maybe make more sense to actually scale Visa down to bitcoin transaction rate, as we can assume more linearity there. The end result is the same though.
> Its like comparing energy costs of bicycles and ocean freighters, but no amount of bicycles could ever tow freight across an ocean.
Quite. However it seems to me its seems unavoidable to do so, since energy efficiency is a big topic these days. Also, while nobody pretends to be able to carry a load across oceans with a bike, it is usually advised to commute by bike rather than a freighter.
In practice people have problems even understanding bitcoins (general speaking and El Salvador specific) and now lightning is the solution while people not even get Bitcoin.
But yes lightning also doesn't work in El Salvador.
So
Do you have any citations?
I'm running a lightning node on testnet...have had some small issues finding a pathway in the graph to one of my nodes, but then again I'm new to it.
> In practice people have problems even understanding bitcoins (general speaking and El Salvador specific) and now lightning is the solution while people not even get Bitcoin.
Most people don't understand how tcp/ip or dns work, yet they have no problem using applications based on it on a daily basis.
A reporter went there after she got invited from him and zig other crypto bros.
Currently ~17k nodes, 82k channels, ~5k BTC capacity ($100m) on the network.
The network's capacity is up about 66% is the last year: https://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity
Arte is quite known for its cultural tv and documentaries.
And your statistics is not saying much. Relevant is real life. Take a look at the documentary how people in El Salvador use crypto and not some white dude with too much money waiting for the next big thing.
> And your statistics is not saying much. Relevant is real life.
The statistics are real life: they represent people committing time and resources by hosting nodes and risking their btc to use on a developing, experimental live network.
But what you're doing is the equivalent of looking at early 90's internet, not understanding it, and pronouncing, 'This is stupid, nobody will use this 'Internet' to meet other people. People aren't going to order their pizzas online. Just ask anyone on the street; nobody knows what internet is, and therefore this is a failure.'
Unfortunate that it's geoblocked it's worth while as she talks to people in El Salvador about crypto. Normal people