Bitcoin: Environmental Disaster?
 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...-disaster.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...ntal-disaster/

http://gizmodo.com/5994626/bitcoin-m...nmental-impact

However, considering just how many 'interwebz-coinz' are being traded/mined, as well as all the bank talk of their own versions..

we have a problem or what?

this myth was debunked a long time ago.

how so?

.

bitcoin crash 5/20/13

How did they debunk that? Logically, it makes total sense. More power is being used to just mine the coins.

several reasons.

the logic is dishonest, you can't just take the electrical cost of something and determine if it's good or bad overall. the main article that started this myth takes electrical costs and examines them in a vacuum, not reality, it also fits the electrical costs into a u.s. analogy, that's also wrong.

fact is, btc mining moves to where electrical costs are cheapest, wherever in the world that may be and there are many many places on this planet that produce more electricity than they consume.

and finally, from the 2nd article:

:)

yes we know. but all these 'myth debunks' focuses on bitcoin alone.. when now there is over 15 different coins with different 'mining operations'.. and now banks are talking about doing their own thing

So, over the next 20 years, what form of energy consumption will there be?

Critics are already pushing back against the "environmental disaster" claim. Writing in Forbes, Tim Worstall says the energy being used is "simply trivial," amounting to 0.025 percent of the total US household electricity supply. And worldwide, that percentage would be far lower. Besides, Worstall says, "at some point Bitcoin mining will stop. There is an upper limit to the number that can ever be mined; I think I’m right in saying that we’re about halfway there at present. Thus this energy consumption will not go on rising forever. At some point it will come to a dead stop in fact." (The system is self-limiting, with a max of 21 million bitcoins.)

As for the stats themselves, they're fairly speculative to begin with. The computers calculating hashes are assumed to be using 650W per gigahash—which Blockchain freely admits is an estimate that depends entirely on the efficiency of one's computation hardware. In addition, Blockchain assumes the cost of electricity to be 15 cents per kilowatt hour; here in Chicago, it's only one-third that number. Neither the amount of electricity used nor the cost of that electricity is a number worth putting a huge amount of faith in.

you started a thread re: bitcoins being an environmental disaster, i am chatting about that, i can't really chat about crypto-currencies that don't even exist.

nevertheless, who's to say any future crypto-currency will even be mined like btc.

i did start a threat with that in the title:

I also added this...

good point, also changes to billing for energy, solar power blah blah

i wonder what the energy costs are for printing up trillions of dollars

just the the electric bill, nothing else.

it's interesting to me the original author compares the energy cost of btc mining with the large hadron collider. i'm trying to find the implication there. the lhc has value while btc does not? weird comparo.

mining bitcoins cheaper than minting: :::::::

There are now 8.3 trillion US dollars in the world (both physical and virtual), so if Bitcoin were to take control of all that, its (equivalent, since in such a world USD would likely no longer exist) price would be $8.3 trillion / 21 million, or $3.95 million USD per BTC. Assuming that transaction fees stay the same (a fair assumption, since total fees as measured in real value and the real-value price of a bitcoin both roughly scale with the size of the community so the two cancel out), the network will cost at most the real value of the transaction fees (1.44 BTC per day) — $2.08 billion per year. Just the US Mint spends $7 billion per year right now, not to mention the private businesses that will be supplanted by Bitcoin — Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, much of the banking system, etc. Even with transaction fees 50 times as high, Bitcoin will be worth it.

not really.. he's implying that the LHC has some scientific benefit, whereas cyrto-currenies don't

however, this 'processing issue' is only a problem if the processing does nothing.. which i personally highly doubt

if the processing was, for example, curing cancer or something.. becomes a mute point almost immediately

ya these assholes dont even care how much coal ash and carbon they spew into the atmosphere...not to mention rising sea levels, drought and hurricanes caused by radical bitcoin miners. these motherfuckers are modern day enviromental terrorists

what value does the lhc provide the world? seriously. think about it. wtf is a higs boson and how does that help anything? fact is, no one knows right now.

and whatever value that is, an experiment in crypto-currency provides a similar value.

LHC results helps to know sooner how to build a quantum computer.
Then quantum thing will consume less energy and be 100 times faster:

http://pqcrypto.org/

CIA it is investing in quantum computers, as government wants to decrypt all what we think it can not be decrypted. They will have probably it running in secret before we really know. Could be they got one from spaceship in area 52 crash too :)

I see it as the total opposite, the technology is only getting better.. less energy for more hashing power. Shit 2 years ago a 5 GH/S rig would draw probably somewhere around 2000 watts or something (or more). Now a 5 gh/s Asic rig draws like 30 watts. The technology will only improve, and miners will move to places with cheap energy, or invest into free energy sources themselves. Maybe bitcoin will give the alternative energy sector a kick in the ass.

How much energy does the current banking sector use? What about paypal. How much energy is burned with all these employees going back and forth to work each day?

Even if those electrical estimates are accurate it doesnt matter because bitcoin SUPPLANTS other currencies that have an even far greater environmental impact.

Its pretty obvious that if you factored in all the greenhouse gas created by the printing and associated employee carbon footprint in the banking and financial sector (a bank or mint staffer driving to work and the shower he/she took that morning would count) you would find that bitcoin is actually very GREEN.

finally someone has it haha good one

I still believe the world will end in 21 December 2012.

So are we when we use the internet to type about this trivial stuff. How much energy do the GFY servers consume?

Thanks for ruining the environment, bitcoin.

dicks.

Maybe this is why Frank left the other day. He saw the end was near so packed up his coins and headed for Mexico

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

that kidnapper in cleveland also had a huge bitcoin mining operation he made the girls run.

Expect the next big thing - they blame the internet because computers need electricity to run... :1orglaugh

well the idea of bitcoin is supposed to be new, but teh same problem exists.. in order to generate resource, you must produce waste

same shit, different pile

everything produces waste, have you taken your morning shit today?

certainly let's all try to limit waste but fact is, even natural designs produce waste.

so not so cutting edge, yes?

same as the lhc.