Over 2 percent of the US’s electricity generation now goes to bitcoin

There is no tomorrow, because of global warming.

Yes, good, blame the poor, make them feel responsible. Forget corporations, forget who is actually burning the earth down. The earth is going to die because YOU drove a gas car, used bitcoin, and don't like paper straws.

"The System" is not really that intelligent. The statement that "It will always cost a little less than one Bitcoin to mine a Bitcoin" is only correct because the incentives in the system steer everyone toward that. There's no direct link between the two. Bitcoin Miners are intently aware of how much energy they consume, and if the price of Bitcoin dips below what they are paying for electricity, they likely will shut down their rigs, because no one wants to mine at a loss.

The real issue with Bitcoin is that the algorithm used to find more Bitcoins is kind of basic in terms of its difficulty mechanism. It was the first one ever used for cryptocurrency. It was originally envisioned that owners could mine more bitcoin with spare cycles on their CPU, but since it was first designed, people have come up with custom mining chips that can mine faster and much more power efficiently. But paradoxically, this has made things worse, because the bitcoin mining difficulty simply scaled up to account for all that. So now the only way to mine Bitcoin is to have this custom hardware -- it's too hard to do any other way -- and you need so much of it that you are just as power hungry as before.

There are other algorithms that don't have these same problems. They have been designed to use other computing resources (like gobs of memory) that are much harder to concentrate on custom chips, making it much more expensive (monetarily and spatially as well as computationally) to simply spam more of them. Ethereum uses a totally different model now that doesn't rely directly on power consumption at all.

OG Bitcoiners seem to think that the massive power consumption is a net benefit, because it is spent in making the overall network more secure, and less likely to be attacked. So they will never try to change their block algorithm, even though other projects are just as secure with less power consumed. And if that opinion holds, the only way to eliminate this source of power consumption would be to crash the price, and cause the Bitcoin miners to have to mine at a huge loss to continue.

I think what needs to be considered here is what we consider a waste of electricity. Efficiency calculations are dependent on waste, So I personally think electric cars are a waste of resources, they consume electricity to run and consume non renewable resources to produce just to move a maximum of 1-5* people per journey. Whereas an electric which still uses this resources can move over 10x that amount per journey, and trains over 30x that amount per journey.

So to me that's energy inefficiency at the consumer point.

Now let's look at energy generation and transfer. At the moment, alot of energy production is a for profit business, Company A builds a solar farm, Company B builds a Coal power plant and Company C (This would be overseen by the government, not a private company) builds a nuclear reactor. All 3 of these companies produce various amounts of electricity with different efficiencies, but all must be sold at the same price. It might only cost £0.01/KwH on the solar farm to produce, but must be sold for £0.33/KwH, the coal would be £0.27/KwH and nuclear would be £0.45/KwH.

You have 3 generation methods, each with strengths and weaknesses all being forced to sell for the same price. Normally in a capitalist system you see "Competition" (not really) on the market. Company A would say "We're cheap, but can only guarantee 97% uptime due XYZ issues", most homes would be fine with me this. Company B + C "We're not as cheap but we can offer 99.9% uptime" This looks great for companies needing that security in uptime.

I've gone on a tangent and can't be bothered finishing this post maybe someone else will.

I think the best solution would be to properly tax carbon. That way Bitcoin miners would either become unprofitable or move to greener energy.

I don't think it's a good idea to establish the precedent that gov't can decide what you can and cannot do with your energy. You may think it's a waste of energy, but if the externality is properly taxed, I don't see the problem with letting it continue

If you destroy Bitcoin, another currency would take its place.

Some have tried, they have all failed. Bitcoin is international. A 51% attack is so implausibly expensive that nobody really has the resources to pull it off. Even if you had enough money and energy to burn, there is the small problem of acquiring enough of the specialized hardware to do it (ASIC miners), and potentially the specs and fab to make that hardware. People will see it coming a mile away. Don't want to use ASICs? Enjoy at least a 100x increase in energy and equipment costs. And it gets more expensive every year. If you had that much money to put into destroying Bitcoin, it would be much better spent on an ad campaign telling people Bitcoin was bad than doing a 51% attack.

A 51% attack doesn't prove Bitcoin is broken, it proves the protocol is working exactly as expected. A 51% attack causes a temporary fork. This happens all the time organically when two miners find the next block at the same time, it's a natural part of the protocol. That's why for really large or important transactions on main chain, you wait a few blocks before considering them fully secured.

Bitcoin's value to society is the ability to easily transfer money from point A to B and having a clear fiscal policy it has kept to for 15 years, 365 days a year, 24/7 without a single hour of downtime, a bank holiday, or getting hacked. There's a reason big money like hedge funds and private banking are investing in it: it's actually useful and has massive potential. The market cap of Bitcoin is 850 BILLION USD, that's bigger than the GDP of Sweden or Israel or Vietnam. People use it to move over a trillion dollars of value a year. You can debate how much of that movement is trading & speculation vs use as a currency, but it's a trillion nonetheless. I personally pay for things regularly with Bitcoin, you'd be surprised how many places you can spend it when you start looking. And it's available to anybody with a cellphone and halfway reliable internet access, including the billions of people who are "unbanked" and lack access to stable banking infrastructure.

Transactions on Bitcoin lightning occur in under a second and cost pennies in fees. That's to send it across the room or across the globe. Remittance services and bank wires use just as much energy and cost 10x-1000x as much. And they waste not just energy but human capital as well, we no longer need humans manually sending bank wires like it's 1910. You just don't see headlines about the energy impact of bank wires or western union because it's not novel, we just accept it as a cost of our financial system.

That's not even getting into the secondary costs to the environment of running a society on an economy based on an inflationary currency which requires that currency be rapidly spent because it's getting constantly devalued. That's a great strategy to rapidly industrialize the world, but it's not a great strategy on a globe with limited resources. Tell me, if you knew your dollar would be worth 10% more next year, would you be more hesitant to spend it? Might you consume less if you knew saving money in your bank account would actually cause it's value to stay the same or increase over time? Might you focus your spending more on quality products that will last instead of just buying the cheapest thing because if it breaks, you can just buy a new one? This isn't just on a personal level, this same kind of calculus is used by big investment firms to build everything that won't last. Buildings, stadiums, entire cities, financed with money that is constantly losing value. Bitcoin's value relative to goods and services will fluctuate like any currency does, but the supply of the currency does not increase. There are 21 million which will ever be minted. Your 0.1BTC will always be 0.1BTC and will always represent 0.1/128M% of the total supply. If the Bitcoin economy grows, you share in that growth and the value it produces instead of seeing the difference printed away and given to whoever controls the money supply and whoever they want to give it to.

I avoid it to not feel like a dumbass.

Saving the energy is just a bonus..

How can we expect North Korea’s criminal enterprise to flourish without it?

Earth is fucked; I need money.

Buy Bitcoin.

Anything is only worth what someone will pay. Always. Nothing has value beyond that.

Does your client allow sorting by controversial/score/down votes? I haven't seen that option, which on one hand I'm happy for (one of my self-destructive reddit habits) but is also sometimes is so satisfying.

I'm not an economist or anything, but I don't think it's a sunk cost fallacy I think it's just a market. They're all mining both. Just leaning heavier on whichever one makes them more money in the moment. The market is going to have a hell of a lot of inertia.

Yep, Ethereum uses less power than a debit/credit transaction or even a PayPal transaction.

I wish all my the nightmares would be like this!

I can't believe its that high, what a fucking big, stupid, dumbdumb thing. So wasteful and for what benefit?

Maybe the larger American owned projects are located in places where energy is cheaper / cooling is easier

Bitcoin is anything but reliable and independent. And it's 2% for the miniscule inconsequential amount of transactions it does compared to the amount of transactions happening.

More like 2% for a casino.

All that energy for bitcoin only supports 7 tx/s. Digital dollar payments do tens if not hundres of thousands per second.

You need the same infrastructure for any electronic payment system.

What you don't need for anything is crypto "mining", which is almost pure overhead. That's what the article is about.

This doesn't mean we can't do better than both.

Well, so a lot of people call it a Ponzi scheme, and it certainly has been used as one before, but the thing that separates it from a true Ponzi scheme is there is a product, and it's not you.

Places accept Bitcoin as a currency, there's Bitcoin ATMs, all that. This makes it valuable as a method to make online purchases, specifically, as a third-party payment processor. First you convert your money to Bitcoin through a service of your choice that's not related to the person you're paying, then you transact, and eventually that person cashes out Bitcoin for money. This generates 3 transactions, which a Bitcoin miner can authenticate and be paid in Bitcoin for their efforts.

This seems convoluted but it's about the same process as using a debit card, with MasterCard or Visa promising to balance everything in a bit and acting as an institution to verify trust.

This process is not the only positive thing about Bitcoin, but it's a major one and ensures two things. The first is that those exchange services give everyone in this "Ponzi scheme" an out. While they're running, you can't be pumped and dumped in the usual way. This creates some confidence, which helps keep people in, which raises the value. A normal Ponzi scheme promises an out, but has none.

The second, because there's people who trust in Bitcoin on actual merits, is that Bitcoin becomes a legitimate investment. It becomes equivalent to currency exchanges, where people exchange their money anticipating the value of USD or the euro to raise or fall. Again, very much like a Ponzi scheme, but since these people have an out, this is a risk, not a scam.

As far as I know (I'm not an expert) these two kinds of transactions are the bulk of the transactions in Bitcoin, but between the two, Bitcoin will remain alive with frequent usage and that enables bitcoin mining. None of this is stable, but it's also not a scam.

During the big push to get some vendors to accept Bitcoin this system hadn't formed, there were plenty of people willing to sell and mine Bitcoin, but few that were willing to buy it, and calling it a Ponzi scheme was appropriate. It's just the end goal wasn't to sucker someone into giving you money, it was to sucker them into supporting an economy that didn't exist. They succeeded, so now it's not a scam, just risky.

It recently got ETF approval by the US government, so hate to break it to you, but this "scam" is here to stay.

If you're wise, you'll buy in now while the price is still relatively cheap.