Bitcoin Forum

There is this widespread notion that Bitcoin mining is detrimental to the environment, because of all the electricity it consumes. At a quick superficial glance, it seems logical. But in reality, it is not exactly the case.

Who mines Bitcoin and what kind of electricity is used for Bitcoin mining?

Currently, China accounts for about 71% of the mining hash power in the world. The mining farms are based in Western China. But why there?

Hydro power plants have been created in the past for the production of aluminium. Electricity is 60% of the cost to aluminium production through smelting. The aluminium market is oversaturated for years now and China, being a top producer, has cut the production. So they have a huge surplus of hydro energy that is not utilized. For simplicity, imagine a hydro power plant in the fields, surrounded by nothing else. And hydro energy is clean energy. It doesn’t kill trees.

However, the technological infrastructure for transporting the energy to regions that actually need it, is lacking. This overcapacity of energy can’t just be sent to China’s bustling urban centers. Actually it can, but electricity will have to travel long distances, which equals huge losses. Therefore, it would be more economical for a power consumer to be closer to the source of the power. This is where the mining farms and their warehouses have been built. Right next to the close-to-useless hydro power plants. So the majority of miners are using failed energy projects and not investing in new ones.

In order to mine Bitcoin, all you need is mining hardware, internet connection and a simple software and now the unutilized energy is used towards creating a decentralized blockchain system. Unused clean hydro energy is entering the global economy. This is the real mining! At the core of it, we have a Chinese river allowing a rural farmer in Africa get paid for the cotton he produces through the Bitcoin network. The Chinese rivers help a Filipino immigrant in USA to send his payroll to his relatives in the Philippines for cents of a dollar, rather than for a 40% commission fee via Western Union.

But Bitmain and the other pools are making so much money out of it. Is it fair?

Well, gold diggers and oil rigs are also making tons of money. Is it fair? Traditionally, the resource mining business has always been one of the most lucrative. It is at the top of the supply chain. In order for us to go to a gas station and fuel our car tank, someone had to drill that oil first. Gas has value for us as end users. We travel faster than on horses. In order for the gas station to make profit on retail prices, they need to buy that gas from someone first and so on. There is value for everyone in the chain, provided that the product or resource is actually needed.

The value exchange is pretty simple

Unutilized clean energy coming from rivers that doesn’t pollute the air on one hand. And the maintaining of a global decentralized payment system on the other.

So the real question is: “Is a decentralized, open, alternative, state-free monetary system needed?” For the average citizen in a developed country, it may still not be. But for billions underbanked that is life-changing.

A system that allows for 24/7 payments with no borders and close to zero fees. An alternative system to fiat money, that allows people in countries like Venezuela to protect their money and assets in rough times. A system that provides banking for billions in regions where there is no banks.

Conclusion

Unutilized clean hydro energy is being transformed into a global, borderless, open, decentralized, alternative financial system. The air is not being polluted. But the annual profits of banks are! And they will keep pondering how detrimental Bitcoin mining for humanity is. Is this the truth? Decide for yourself.

I would be happy to hear your thoughts on the subject...

If that energy wouldn't be used for bitcoin mining it would be used for another purpose that right now is using coal energy. Pretty simple. Let's say that all the energy from the three gorges dam is going to be used for bitcoin mining, what are the people that currently are using that energy going to do? Turn to coal!!!!

There is no industry that can claim is burning green unless there is a way to fulfill the entire need out of renewable sources.



Bs!

Each and every profitable investment has caused damage to the nature in some way. The damage caused by mining bitcoins are very negligible compared to that. Negative news and promotions are just a agenda for tarnishing bitcoin's reputation.

BS
as for the idea that utility companies import electric due to over capacity is another flawed notion.

imagine electric generation.. like a car journey
right now coal gnerators take so long to set up, warm up and get on the road(send electric through the cables) that they end up just staying on the road and act like Uber, taking other people and leasing out their spare seat.. because its wastes so much fuel warming up the car each time you turn on and off the key, it ends up easier to leave the engine on

 the truth is more likened to the concept of car sharing. imagine every day your car has 4 seats but only 1 commuter (the driver).. imagine your neighbour knows you can get him to the destination and does not want the hassle of warming up his own car. checking the car is fit to drive and then taking the journey alone. so asks because you are already on the road if he can take a spare seat and share in the running cost.

now imagine if a big industry comes up to the neighbour and says. il give you a contract to lease out the spare seat of your hydro/solar hybrid car for a year AND we still have 2 back seats so that Mr Coal can tag along in the hydro-solar car.. making the hydro-solar car the Uber and so now the coal car can finally switch off its engine and get phased out.

think about that
have a nice day

Huge power of electricity is required to mine bitcoin and other cryptocurrency. It really has some impact over the environment. But I hope it will be solved in coming days since so many expert are working hard behind the solution.

That's not utility, that is how much they were able to produce.
No water for all the turbines, there is no way you can produce at full capacity.

The Yangtze has variations up to 6 times in debit.

Check those two graphs and how they match each other:

https://i.imgur.com/KxtEyvY.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/JV1XwVg.jpg



Wrong, coal power plants are always kept on standby and they can produce at 90% in a matter of 10-30 minutes, gas power plants are even faster at coming back online.

Almost every country in Europe is using coal or gas to balance the loads, Germany, for example, is backpedaling on the closure of coal mine as they've experienced the same thing as Poland, 4 days with barely any energy from solar and wind.
With coal/gas plants and imports they would have experienced the stone age for a week.

Check the live graph here:
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm
And look how coal can easily balance the grid, spiking when wind and solar fail...


Unfortunately, the energy sector is not like that.
There is little to spare, there are no empty seats and people are driving in opposite directions.
Car sharing will never be able to even dream what load balancing does to the energy sector.

Don't get me wrong I don't like coal either but without a clean way to store energy, solar and wind will never be able to replace fossil.

Mining Bitcoin generates less environmental damage compare to other mining industry like gold and other fossil fuel exploration. China and Iceland are using green technology for mining bitcoin and it is more portable than mining gold.

Bitcoin mining is not causing environmental damage, rather the money printed in banks from papers are hazarding the trees, harming the ecosystem.

Bitcoin mining has caused a lot of waste of resources and is likely to affect the use of global resources and energy.
The carbon dioxide emissions caused by the power consumption during bitcoin mining will also affect the environment!
The temperature of the BTC mine is very high and it is easy to cause a fire!

No business is harmless I guess. But if you compare the return than the damage, you will easily understand the fact. Crypto market is considering for making money rapidly using open source code. Hence, I would consider its harm if any for getting benefits from it.

If miners could find the cheapest electricity from burning coal doused in bunker oil in giant single use plastic bottles they'd use it. If they didn't, another miner would. They don't care about environmental impacts. The only reason so many went hydro in China is because it was the cheapest as those plants were sitting idle.

I think it's a tad disingenuous to pretend Bitcoin mining in its present state and level is anything other than wasteful. I don't care if banking uses plenty of electricity too. The best we can hope for is that renewable stuff gets cheaper and winds up making the most sense.

Every industry has to trash something in the fabrication process to obtain its final products. Those wastes go to the sea, to the river, to the air... The heat issued by the mining process is nothing compared to the oil or coil extraction.

Bitcoin is now widely used and popular. Bitcoin demand can increase as more production increases. But it will not do any harm to the environment. Because the irrigation used here is environmentally friendly.

ok... lets react to your chart. and like a poker game raise you my chart
https://i.imgur.com/xyAn4qa.png
yep its not 2008-2016.. but even from 2012-2016 you can see the growth..

nice bluff with the 2008 chart though..
anyway
left
~22500 in 2008
~29000 in 2012
~69000 in 2016
right
~49twh in 2008   
~119twh in 2012
~262twh in 2016

i don some trrible math in previous post converting hour yo year. which i remove in a few minutes of reading. but using a poker term, you had a quick hand to quote it in thm few minutes..

anyway.
upto 2016 it was using under 100twh but producing able to produce far more.. so had spare seats

Wrong, coal power plants are always kept on standby and they can produce at 90% in a matter of 10-30 minutes, gas power plants are even faster at coming back online.
[/quote]
what i saiid and what you said are the same thing.. coal are not switched off. because it takes time to turn them on.. so they are always on and just sat at idle asking anyone to lease their time. they are ready to go and act as the uber driver.. because it cost too much to turn them off

and the plan/utopia is for renewables to be the standby/uber and then for coal to get to leave its engine OFF not always be in standby asking if othr countries need a lift.

as for the bits below.. well you conveniently you start talking about solar and wind.... nice subtle deflection away from hydro..



yes solar and wind are vary iffy.. especially wind. but if you took hydro you can have a more controlled mix then gothermal, then biomass.. and then.. have solar next inline and then wind to use as last. you can control things. EG wind is the worse. unpredictable and so when supply is high wind can be turned off easily.. then solar and then hydro.
what the energy companies are trying to do is get to a point where it is not coal thats the main source/last to switch off.. they eventually want hydro to be the always on standby(uber) and have coal and wind as the temporary

before i continue.. ill just say this
as for mentioning countries like poland.. again nice sidestep.. you do know that poland latitude means it only gets under 8 hours of sunlight in january.
im kind of thinking you meandered away from hydro.. and away from china.. to talk about solar/wind in poland for a convenient reason..

but lets stick with hydro in china..


firstly energy sector WAS not like that. BUT is moving towards the things i said..
right now coal have lots to spare. its why they are able to sell it.. but for hydro to expand and become Lift(competitor to uber) they first need good reason to keep hydro production running 24/7.. and thats where contracted year supplys come in.. they can then get guaranteed year round revenue. and then use that revenue to expand. and have a fleet of Lift drivers(dams)

solar/wind(facepalm)

.. anyway china.. hydro (the subject of this topic) CAN store energy.. (reservoirs)
storing water vs storing coal. water is more environmentally friendly.. .. (fish and ducks CANT have sex and repopulate in coal) :D
turning water into electric does not produce smog.
and
imagine this.. the water thats released from a dam... can fill another reservoir.. and that same exact water can be re-used to turn more turbines

now.. to address your whole meandering..
i never said that right now this second hydro IS uber... but thats the future plan
right now electric companies need a consistant contract and payment for them to have a reason to keep hydro on 24/7.. and then use those funds to expand.. (its not free to make new dams)
so by doing yearly contracts of known electricrical usage (hiring a chauffer for a year) means the driver has a constant role to play and can expand business because they have constant revenue..

What do you mean by green technology in China? Do you mean hydroelectric generation stations? Certainly more green than say coal or something similar.

I think I know what you mean in Iceland, that being the geothermic power, right?

I've said time and time again that this argument that Bitcoin is leading to damage is a bunch of bullshit spewed by the media, governments, regulators, and the sheep that blindly follow these people as a way to discredit Bitcoin (and all cryptocurrencies) Yes, bitcoin may cause some sort of environmental damage -- but are we going to compare this with the LITERAL PRINTING OF hundreds of millions of dollars of money each year, burning of bills to put them out of circulation, and so on and so forth? Bitcoin may use energy, but this energy was going to be used either way. We're not a harmless currency, but no currency is harmless. I don't get this argument by people that don't like bitcoin, it makes little to no sense.

Reading this I feel tempted to say somebody hacked your account

Do you really have no clue what installed capacity and production is when we talk about hydro energy?

For three months the Yangtze is increasing its flow 6 times.
There is no way any dam could hold the amount of water needed for a median production over 12 months, so this is why the huge installed capacity comes into play, running at full power for 3 months and going below when the water levels go down.
When the rainy season is over, so it's the unlimited cheap power.

And there are times when you have to shut it down because there is too much water (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-weather-power/in-drastic-move-chinas-top-hydropower-plants-slash-capacity-idUSKBN19P0D6)  8)


It's not a deflection.
Hydro is limited, there are just x rivers flowing with y water at z height.
You will NEVER be able to supply the whole world with hydro
So it's obvious that the only thing left was exactly the solar thing  YOU mentioned first..... 3 times

Remember?


Yeah, I've heard they've discovered another Amazon river in Mali....


and another turbine....and another one.....and you've invented the perpetuum mobile....

Get over it.
Only 15% of the global energy is produced by hydro, even if we tap every possible source we will get only to 25-30%.
And this before we plug in 3 billion electric cars :P

And if you mentioned staying on topic...gentlemand summarized it  perfectly


Let's see all those mini-hydropower plants in China deal with bitcoin at 100 000$.

From my point of view bitcoins play a role which contributing a much lager concept of energy consumption. I think society also understand the popularity of bitcoin in last decade. Scientist also aware about the relation of humanities carbon footprint. So I think its not that much damage our environment.

holysheeit sir you're something you really are, what are you on?.

I think you were just using more electricity you'll pay it anyways, it's no where near in mining Manganese, tantalum, cassiterite, copper, tin, nickel, bauxite (aluminum ore), iron ore, gold, silver, and diamonds   

Mining actually creates an interesting scenario. Mining is a way for users in the network to process transactions and receive payment for participation in helping run the network. The problem lies within the very tools utilized to mine with in the first place.
Mining by today's means, requires one hell of a rig setup, which naturally wil end up being an energy consumer.
   Mining may actually present a serious problem as far as you electric bill is concerned, but other than that, this environmental threat seems to be more or so based on paranoia. I mean, let's be logical for a second and think, how many people are actually mining,  let alone equipped to do so?  I can see if every house on the block had a rig setup, but where talking bout small number of people compared to those who don't mine.

From my point of view Bitcoins are contributing to the warming of the atmosphere without providing a significant public benefit in return. Some Bitcoin enthusiasts claim that it will eventually become a mainstream currency, and that the cryptogovernance system upon which it’s built could actually help the environment.

I think not really you're just consuming a lot of electricity that you used too, but nothing much compare to mining of minerals

Yeah i think so because it uses a lot of electricity but i think it doesn't give that much damage though

the scarcity of bitcoins is a problem to be solved, because the bitcoin scarcity makes a miner difficult to solve cryptographic puzzles, and electricity consumption becomes expensive.

so I think there are many other alternatives we can do to save electricity, such as hydro mining, mine using waste power, or solar power, or steam power.

As you mentioned, mining consumes a lot of energy. Large mining farms are usually located in countries with excess electricity. Mining rigs are not the only machines which "waste" electricity. They need a proper cooling. However, I have seen a few startups which are trying to make use of the heat which is generated during the process of mining. Many households would be actually able to cover the cost of electricity thanks to the earnings from mining. Once electricity becomes more expensive all around the world, mining farms owners will have to invest in renewable energy.

I don't think that bitcoin mining causing a huge environmental damage. But I guess there occur a little by using a concidarable number of electricity. I thinik Environmental damage is occuring by many other related aspects.

What is more Environmentally unfriendly? Bitcoin mined from unsustainable energy or copper, nickel and zinc mines that provides these metals to be used in minting coins for the fiat system? Put that into your pipe and smoke that....  ;)

We have not even touched on the Cotton and Paper that are used to print notes.  ::)  {How much water is wasted in this process?} Oh, before I forget, the UK are printing plastic notes now.

Let's rather look at the bigger picture, before we get the pitchforks out to attack Bitcoin again.  >:(

you are right the OPs statement is not valid if the industry is using already exisitng energy infrastructure.
However if the minig rigs are using newly built alternative energy source or creating demand for electricity which is filled by some alternative energy resources, it is green mining. In order to understand what is the real impact of minig , we would need more data and much wider and deeper analysis of energy markets.

There also is topic of blockchain vs fiat and there is room for discusiion if blockchain is more enviromently demaging that FIAT system.

The article is really self explanatory in the support of bitcoin mining in that part of the world because its really not affecting anything and that is a cogent reason why I think the Chinese government have not pull the plug on mining activities despite their negative stance against bitcoin and crypto activities. To me, its a win-win to them because the facility that a whole lot of money was spent to bring into existence is now being wasted away but some facilities are therefore making use of it at the same time making money out of it to pay taxes to government.

I also don't think the banks are damaging the environment because they don't engage in manufacturing activities or exploring activities that we see in companies in that sector do to the environment.

I don't think that it is causing environmental  damage as by doing this air is not being polluted.Banks have a big part for spreading this type of news. However a large amount of energy consumption needed for bitcoin mining.

All your points are logical enough. I totally agree with you. We can utilize the unused hydro energy for mining Bitcoins and that won’t do any harm to the environment. Moreover, we should look for another alternative way in which there will be no harm to the environment and we can still utilize the unused hydro energy.

I do not think so. Actually we are now living in the era of technology and technology is nothing without electricity. So if electricity consumption is bad then we will have to stop using technology. Bitcoin is consuming electricity but it is also giving benefits to the society also. It is also helping to establishing energy project also.

Not, really. BTC is all done in an electronic manner. The things are done on devices which does not emit any harmful substances. The only downturn is, it uses up a lot of energy. That is the only downside. Apart from that, it is not that harmful for the environment.

Hmmm... I think it gives an idea of who is disturbed about Bitcoin's potential and its positive impact on the world. Ecological excuses are a good strategy when you want to weak an opponent. Always suspect exaggerated predictions told by ecology experts as they were absolut truths.

Bitcoin isn't the first victim of the environmental activists and it won't be the last...

Well I think so.  My experience to synchronize the bitcoin core take about 6 weeks almost nonstop to finish.  After that it takes another several hours to resync if I quit the app for a day. 

because mining tools usually use high-level VGA, then I think that makes dangerous mining equipment is the stability of the power supply
If you use a hydroelectric power station, you should think hard to keep power steady in your supply of VGA and RIG mining

One possible solution is for nations to use more renewable energy for mining. I think most sensible people realize that it's not practical for cryprocurrencies to rely on proof of work mining, so the shift to proof of stake by some coins should alleviate some of the energy consumption.

yes, I agree with you. the bitcoin mining uses electricity and not causing environmental damage. maybe there will be a big consumption of electricity that will be used for bitcoin mining. and I think the bitcoin mining company will solve this problem as the electricity is not the only use for mining only but also use for the humankind.

all this energy  drama has been mostly an attack against bitcoin to indirectly imply that "bitcoin is a waste of energy" and with that imply that "bitcoin shouldn't exist". but the thing is they are just spreading FUD to make people believe that bitcoin is not providing any utilities. OP had a good point, bitcoin is a 24/7 global payment system with very small fees and no restrictions like the ones banks have. if you really think about what bitcoin is truly doing then you can see that no matte how much energy it consumes it still wouldn't be too much.
as for environmental damage, anything that uses energy is damaging environment. humans living on earth are damaging the environment but would you stop living because of that?

Until there is an independent scientific study that shows the damage (or non-damage) to the environment, this question does not make sense.

Yes, bitcoin mining is not really causing damage for our environment.
If you see the real gold mining or other metal mining, they should causing more damage for environment because their waste products.
cryptocurrency mining is only consuming electricity and doesn't have waste products.

Humanity is developing now, look around. Yes, the production of bitcoin requires a lot of electricity, as well as the development of electric cars, robots...

Probably not.After all, mining consumes energy and as we all know it, we can extract water from the air and from anything,in the flesh to sunlight and rice grains!

I don’t think that bitcoin is causing any kind of environmental damage, the only requirement for using the bitcoin and investing into it is the internet, internet is the only requirement for bitcoin and for other crypto currencies operation too and I have also heard the rumour that in the coming future bitcoin will use twice the amount of electricity as use by the entire world currently and I found to be totally hypothetical and I think that bitcoin is that kind of resource that could never be easily exhausted so I don’t think that bitcoin is causing any kind of environmental damage.

I think that mining cryptocurrency Bitcoin, as well as mining any other cryptocurrency does not cause environmental harm to the planet.

Compared to the governments dropping munitions all day long?  Or Chinese factories?  This is just media fake news hype.  I cannot believe anyone even reads or believes this shit. 

I am believe electricity consumption for bitcoin mining not too much. Not more than 1% from electricity global supply. Beside that, right now many alternative energy and friendly energy that used by miners

Reality speaking most of the things existing in this generation contributes negatively to the environment. When it comes to the energy being consumed by bitcoin, I believe it is not much to be an issue. There are other alternative ways to produce energy. Too much consumation of energy is already a problem even before crypto was not made. What people should think is how to make those alternative ways possible and sufficient for every country.

In my opinion bitcoin does not cause any damage to the environment and if there are only a few, because when you invest in bitcoin you only need a computer or an internet laptop. Is not that too hard or does it hurt so much?

I believe that if BTC mining is using renewable source of energy, I think it has a lesser impact to the environment. However, for those btc miners that are using their source of electricity coming from power plants using fossil fuels, I believe this could somehow create a small impact to the environment due to  high electricity consumption where power plants consumes much higher fossil fuels.

This is the first time I've heard of this and is actually surprising. Sure bitcoin mining takes a lot of energy to operate especially if you have a farm of miners but was it really to the extent that those countries are running of electricity? And cause havok to the environment? They are paying for that electricity and if they profit more from it then it is their right. There are more environmental problems right now and IF crypto mining IS one of them then it should be the least of our problems. They should focus on plastic wastes first and even smoke emissions. Oh wait, electric cars will be one of the solutions. Would they be an environmental problem also?

It's hard to tell whether this is the truth. I mean if really 70% of bitcoin mining energy comes from hydro plants, then it would be surely more ecological than traditional banking.

Seriously people worried about the energy consumption of miners,nah.There are lot of renewable sources available on the earth from that we can produce enough electricity to power the world but there are lazy overnments who want to blame the bitcoin for the mining purpose,ther are lot of industries who producing useless products so we need to seal them all?

I think Iceland is the leading country when it comes to environmentally friendly crypto mining on an industrial scale. Here is an excerpt from a very informative article:


Iceland has a naturally cold climate and a lot of renewable energy sources which make this little country a sought-after destination for crypto mining companies.

obviously it damages the environment, because it uses electricity with fossil fuels in excess. it will make natural resources run out quickly. and coal has a limited amount.

Don't think that the problem here is bitcoin mining at all.

Bitcoin mining affects the environment significantly less than the construction of physical branches of banks or even the mining of precious metals which are used pretty much as nothing other than commodities which people hold value in with little industrial purpose.

What really matters is how the energy is being generated, as you said. If it's being powered by hydro, or solar energy, then there is really no harm done to the environment. Of course, this is not 100% right now, but even with coal powered energy, the benefits of maintaining a decentralised payment network like bitcoin far outweighs the minimal impact on the environment when compared to other precious mining activities, as stated above.

I dont think mining bitcoin damaging the earth environment because it doesnt consume too much energy.
The factories in the world are worse than bitcoin mining xompany. What i know, mininng bitcoin only required electricity.

If you only look at energy consumption, in a sense, Yes. As well as what damage man causes to nature, not yet invented technology.

Do not forget that no matter what is the source of our electricity still it has some effects. It can still create heat that may not be good to our environment. Too much heat can cause global warming. And global warming can cause a lot of problems to the environment.

Cryptocurrency mining consumes a lot of electrcity. This electricity is made from non-renewable sources. We have to change our priorities. We should regulate mining in such a way that only solar-power energy is to be used for the mining. Otherwise, this will create a energy crisis.

Mining Bitcoin generates less environmental damage compare to other mining industry like gold and other fossil fuel exploration. China and Iceland are using green technology for mining bitcoin and it is more portable than mining gold.

According to another article that I read, bitcoin is actually using up the excess electricity capacity generated by sustainable sources of energy in countries such as China.

If that is the case, then there is really no reason for people to be worried about bitcoin's energy consumption at all.

The energy is responsibly generated, and in a sense, is actually using up energy that would otherwise gone to waste due to the expensive nature of battery farms to retain the excess electricity. Besides, you have to understand that there is nothing different between bitcoin and big banks when it comes to energy consumption - they all use energy to fulfill a very important purpose, and yet people only seem to worry about bitcoin's consumption.

bitcoin mining is done in regions of
china that use hydro
iceland that do geothermal
and now even america using hydro

GOLD mining is done. using
DIESEL excavators
DIESEL sluice machines
DIESEL trucks

anyway.
other articles say bitcoin uses 1% of world electric.
sorry but no
its actually somewhere between 0.029-0.1% of.. wait for it. of just residential level of electricty
bitcoin only uses between 0.029(new 7nm asics) or 0.1%(old 14nm asics)

meaning ignoring industrial, corporate worldwide electric. and just taking average electric just used by 1 billion homes. the entire bitcoin mining process of the whole network only uses 0.029-0.1% of world residential electric
math: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4976730.msg45263751#msg45263751

 

In my opinion, this is only speculation, as do the established environmental damage has not been established. People are habitually afraid of something relatively new.

just Y water is not a problem...
heres your problem.. screw it ill draw it for you
https://i.imgur.com/c6uQBYj.png
(imagining a its a year later... and had a year drought you'll se an empty reservoir, right)


heres my solution
https://i.imgur.com/6Jfzc8f.png

its called re-use.. recycle. after all if you can pee out of your urethra to turn a paper windmill. does the water vanish.
if you direct it right and your standing above a container. the container is now a new bladder.
now pour that over a paper windmill... now i should have sparked your imagination positively
repeat repeat repeat

water turbines are not a one use and its gone forever..... Y water is not a problem
as for z height to have space/capacity for a second bladder/reservoir. well it doesnt need to be a container of a years supply of rain/pee..
so
https://i.imgur.com/5S3PHvN.png
so now as of day 3.. the same water that fills the main reservoir gets reused 3 times.
production: so thats 3x electrical production
capacity: reservoir + 2x 0.003~ of a reservoir to hold and reuse the same water twice to get the 3x production

I think it will reduce the environmental damage if it is implemented in every where because the current systems make more environmental damage than Bitcoin and it is the main reason why Bitcoin was invented to make a more sustainable system to do transactions without any obstacles or barriers but with high efficiency and security and it does the job very fine at the moment so I think it is environmentally friendly 

Almost any human activity is harmful to the environment. If we consider directly the production of crypto-currencies, it is necessary to understand the following: environmental damage is minimal in view of the specifics of production, there is no need for mines, no harm to humans (people are also part of the environment).

Oh my god, you've just invented the Perpetuum mobile!!!
We can build 100 dams and from a single river, we will have infinite energy....

Of course, if we exclude the fact that the Colorado River, for example, has only a 270m drop from the Hoover Dam till the Ocean and the dam itself stand 160 m on top of the water level before the drop. :).

And the pee example.....
Have you calculated if you can produce enough energy with your urine to lift a bottle of water so you can drink it?
On the energy required to lift your body up so you can actually pee?  ::)

Common Franky, what's next?  Flat earth?

it is a big and a very popular debate that we see going on about the environmental damage that is done due to Bitcoin mining and I have heard some miners say Bitcoin mining consume more electricity than other currency mining and some even don't mine Bitcoin anymore specially in countries like mine where electricity prices are high so there wont be any considerable amount of profits at the end for the investment but hope with better solution this situation will change 

Nothing is perfect and if we seek best features from a currency like bitcoin there can be some negative effects that can caused during the process but we should always calculate whether it is worth or are we taking something profitable for the input we have done and with bitcoin it is really worth considering the facilities it provides for its users and businesses so I don't think this is a major issue at the moment

No. This is the tale. What stands out when it is grown on farms a lot of heat - this is true. But the heating of the earth's atmosphere and the strengthening of the greenhouse effect is not affected. Scale is wrong.

All due respect, but people consume electricity every single day, why do we have to blame it all on cryptocurrency alone? Dont you think that we should focus more on other important things that causes environmental damage than blame it on mining bitcoin? Things like single-use plastics, air pollution and water pollution are just three of the things that hurt the environment more than electricity use because of bitcoin mining.

Even this is a negligible issue because the out come of the bitcoin is much better than the cost. But I think  this issue should be fix as soon as possible because this increase the mining cost immensely which reduces any gains for miners who came to the mining field with the desire to earn bitcoins and there job is very important to the bitcoins future and its existence

Earlier bitcoin mining was considered as easy and very profitable and that is the main reason many miners were joined to the network but now things has got little complicated because electricity in many countries are not cheap and even mining hardware is too expensive so most miners think bitcoin mining power waste at least should be reduced in coming years so miners can take a profit than a lost and it will do good to the network

that's what i am thinking about. I'm sure that bitcoin mining doesn't affect to our environment

Well, energy is being used, transformed since many years now, and why this question is being raised now? Is there any meaning to this one if the bitcoin came to existence since decade now and then it started using huge electricity just recently? I guess its useless to talk about the energy consumption of the bitcoin at this point. There is more electricity is consumed by the Information Technology firms around the world than how many firms of bitcoin mining are using put together. So make buzz about the bitcoin's fate through its electricity consumption. Its being paid with the money and no one is using it free of cost, so everything is just fine.

If millions of computers are connected, energy consumption is huge. So we see there are many recommendations for computer users should monitor the energy consumption in the computer system to manage and minimize. But we do not always work 24 hours a day so it will not cause serious environmental damage.

Even bitcoin waste too much energy when considering the return that bitcoin provide for its users it is beneficial because large number of people now rely on bitcoin as traders , investors or as users who use it as a currency for payments and there are individuals who have made bitcoin there only living source so if we neglect bitcoin by only pointing its one problem we have forgot all its benefits in the process so rather than accusing bitcoin we need to find a better solution to fix the problem or to  reduce it

Most say that but it is not a problem with bitcoin but there is a problem with the power source we used to mine bitcoin because most miners use home electricity mainly because it is the most convenient method they can find but this is a era where even cars and houses use solar electricity to run instead damaging the environment but yet even for a great innovative currency like bitcoin we haven't found an innovative way to mine it and we accuse bitcoin that it is making environmental damage but we already have the technology to stop that right now

When we use internet in other purpose then we don't think about the environment and only because bitcoin run through bitcoin we start rising question about it but I must say there is no relation between bitcoin and environment.

I don't think that's true. I think it's just a fairy tale from the yellow press, which are aimed to stop the giants in the field of cryptocurrency mining.

It maybe causing environmental damage and everything in this world which uses electricity or any other things cause environmental damage for some extend for an example we see hybrid cars as environmentally friendly concept because of the fuel efficiency and low air pollution  but to make the hybrid battery some expertise say there is a huge pollution that is causing in the long run but most people buy hybrid and why we should concern about the small bitcoin environment damage when it gives more advantages and benefits 

It is ignorable because we haven't calculated how much of electricity is wasted by currency traditional money transferring systems waste world electricity due to there ineffective systems and processes and if we do that we will definitely find what is the best way to transfer currencies and I am very sure that Bitcoin will win because no other technology in the traditional financial system can compete with Bitcoin at the moment

Do we really need to consider the environmental damage caused by bitcoin mining as significant in the world when there are so many other environment damaging work done in the world such as deforestation, Transportation and other major areas but bitcoin mining causing environmental damage is shown frequently through media and other sources which I think due to lack of understanding about the good that it does

Its true, from what i am ready, bitcoin mining consumption not more than 1% from global capacity. Beside that, electricity technology always improve and right now many ways to harvest energy from nature. Bitcoin not damaging environment

So first anyobe can do mining. For mw mining doesn't realkt causing environmental damage as long as you pay it only damage your pocket or wallet. You pay electricity for you to mine whenever you want it doesnt damage anything. But maybe it helps because once you gain from it you can help or donate money to preserve things.

There was a news that I heard and I think this is the biggest rumours of this era that in the coming decade, bitcoin will use double the amount of electricity as used by the entire world currently and I think this is the biggest joke of the time as we all know that the only requirement for operating bitcoin is the internet and it does not even use that much of internet also and even for the mining of bitcoin, I think that much of electricity is not required so I don’t think that bitcoin is causing any damage to the environment.

if we stuck with GPU mining. then yes todays hashrate would require 140% (1.4x) (the world and then half again) electric supply
but the community have mitigated against that with asics.

currently today with this current generation of asics (not last gens bad mathematical statistic) we are at LESS than 0.1%
and if rumours are true of a 7nm asic of 28th and 0.8kwh... we would be at 0.3% at current hashrate
which means the hashrate can triple from octobers suggested 7nm release.. and still be below this summers 0.1% international usage

now. putting that stuff aside.
power companies make excess energy. they love it when industry buys the excess. and they can expand because that excess was waste is now paid = 100% profit of the waste for the energy company. so they have more funds to expand and add more generators/solar
thus help grow more production due to growing demand. thus the percentage used doesnt exceed percentage generated.

and putting that aside
we are at 20twh so let pretend 50% is in china  (its less but shh dont poke the propagandists)
10twh bout out of chinas 830 EXCESS
that means using current asics. hashrate can go 83x and still be of no concern.
using next gen asics 249x
that means at lets say 50exa now
things can go to 12.25 zetahash (12450exa) before bitcoin even starts to touch regular consumed utility.

which is plenty of time and profitable income for power companies to expand

now i know people will shout limited supply if water for hydro.
ill just leave these crap pictures here.. hint.. recycle the water. dont let it just flush downstream
https://i.imgur.com/c6uQBYj.png
https://i.imgur.com/6Jfzc8f.png
https://i.imgur.com/5S3PHvN.png

Does bitcoin mining really cause environmental damage? I think no because bitcoin mining is a digital process of mining the so called digital gold and you can set your mining rig in your house or at the back of your bakcyard if you're doing mining farm. Unlike the traditional ones where they dig deep into the mountains and use some chemicals just to extract gold out from the land. Additionally, let's not forget that bitcoin is digital and we don't need to cut for trees just to make a printed copy of it.

I totally agree with you. For me, bitcoin mining just cost a small amount of energy and not harm to our ecosystem

funny guy
but logic is not your friend here
no where in the example is showing the watr going back upstream
in short im not perpetually drinking my own pee.
in short whats happening is its a chain gang oral sex orgy of golden shower.
someone below me drinks mine. and generates energy from the same pee that originated from me
someone below them drinks from the middle person. and generates energy from the same pee that originated from me
(p.s.. i never was into golden showers and using this analogy made me cringe.. may i never use this analogy again. but i hope it atleast sparked the idea in easy form for others to understand.)

now take one more look at the picture of the chain of reservoirs/dams...
now going from left to right i shall name them for you.

be aware...(shock warning)
once i name them you can google it. and see that its not perpetual nor is it a fantasy dream. and it is infact possible
left: hoover dam
middle Davis dam
right Parker dam

PS. if davis and parker didnt exist. colorado would make 18% less power
and davis and parker can expand..

Franky is not about fetishes, it's about the laws of physics

That guy who goes to the 100floor will spend more energy caring that extra 500ml of 'water" to dump on his neighbor than the energy that "flow" of water will generate.

That chain of yours will only work when there is enough water at a reasonable altitude, and even with Colorado which is one freaky river, how much does the Parker dam generate? 10% of Hoover's capacity?
If you don't have the relief needed then you will not be able to extract even 1% of the first dam power.
This is why we have so little hydroelectric powerplants in Europe and this is why the largest river (the Danube) has only one set of two dams in a gorge at the Iron Gates.

You simply can't build those damns everywhere and the energy gain is minimal.
Even the eco-warriors are acknowledging that we have reached 50% of the hydro capacity this planet can produce, there is simply too little left untapped.

Don't you think those solutions would have been implemented everywhere if they would indeed be feasible?


I really don't understand why you're so stuck to Asic performance an hashrate..
The thing is pretty simple, the energy consumption is only influenced by the price, nothing else.

You have 10 million in daily rewards then miners will afford to spend 9 million in energy and get some profit.
Bitcoin goes to 60 000, then they will be able to consume x10 more...
It goes to 1 million before the halving ...we're f***.

firstly. where are you even getting the idea about guy travelling up to 100th floor
where are you getting the idea about energy excersion of me lifting a cup to my lips to drink own pee
where are you getting the idea of pumping water upstream to fill reservoirs...

get them foolish idea's out of your head.
the idea is water is already up stream by this funny thing called the weather....
it all goes downstream
but instead of stopping the river. using the water once and then let it travel un reused. to just give it to the sea.
the idea is to have more dams downstream to then reuse the water as it travels...DOWNSTREAM

by the way its not a problem of physics.. but cost and bureaucracy of digging holes concreting walls and displacing residents in the way.

the reason parker and davis dont make as much is because they are bureaucratically not allowed to be as big as the lake preceding hoover damn.

again not physics.. but politics is the restraint
luckily china and other countries dont have the same political problems as a nevada/arizona debates.


the reason the danube doesnt have more dams is because politicians wont allow it as it then stops boats travelling upstream
it seems transporting goods up river is more important then making walls to make electricity down river

the amount of electricity produced is enough for there not to be a NEED. so the priority politically of more electric vs other things the rivers are used for have not had a need to sway the debate.


it is feasible. its just not needed.
EG in 1920's only X electric was needed. so only hoover and parker was made.. lots of fighting over if should they be made happened back then..
...
1950's demand rose. but wait.. stompix says it cant happen there just aint enough..
i imagine stompix having a vision of the river is saying "im trying captain im giving it all she got(scotty startrek)"
 but then miraculously. davis dam was build.. OMG how is that possible. stompix must have asked himself
.. the answer
because politicians weighed up the politics of relocating people, cost to build. vs the real need of more electric. and it was decided. its worth the cost.(physics was not the problem


actually you will find this mindset strange but.
when a miner is willing to pay $6k to mine 1btc. what he also sees is he is commited to $6k for a year. because he has already prepaid the asics and the electric equivelent to that for a year

now if the price goes down below the $6k he is paying.. he actually thinks.. well there is no point buying new equipment this week. but i can buy btc on the market below $6k. and actually turn off some rigs. meaning they can renegotiate the electric allotment they have not used this week. to be allowed to be used at the 53rd week

now if the price rises. they are not forced to do anything... they can all just mine at the same rate. and spend their profits investing in other businesses (yep they do that)
or replace thir rigs with less costly equipment. so that they can let the energy companies give them a few extra weeks extension at the end of the year because they didnt need to use it during the year...

heres a thought for you
if mining is at a 43terrahash month minimum.. ($5800 at per btc mining COST) (i done the math it works out. its in my post history if your bored)
then knowing the btc PRICE is only a bit above that..  so in your mindset. miners in december should have been mining at 120terrahash. because PRICES were 3x so hashrate could/would/should have been 3X 'because they could afford to'

sorry but no. it dont work like that.

if you get a salary. and then suddenly get a pay rise. if your just going to use your pay rise to work even harder always chasing the oppertunity and hope of a pay rise.. then thats you stuck in a perpetual cycle of only ever 'living to work'..
smart people keep the profit. and go on vacation. invest in things. treat their kids to new toys and gadgets. renovate their homes.
if you got a 3x payrise and you only use that to then do 3x more work.. i feel sorry for your family

you will see miners in the MAJORITY only increase 5-10% as a planned periodic growth. if bitcoin went to $1m a coin in under 2 years. you wont see mining pools jump to network hash of 6.6zetahash overnight (using the metrics of this generations ASICs)($900k)

they would go on vacation. and keep at their slower progressive hashrate..

ill give you a hint. sustainable price rises that dont crash is due to mining pushing up prices and then buying up coin if the price goes down...
not where the price makes the hashrate jump.

heres another hint.
october 2013 happened because miners pushed the price up becaus everything switched from GPU to ASICS.
asic miners were making a profit and going on holiday. GPU miners cried as they couldnt profit gpu mining. so they just bought coin..
(bitcoin history asics released october 2013)

now the december 2017 spike (caused by banking institutions buying up coin to settle with certain bitcoin entities contracts that completed midnovember) the spike of that buyup DID NOT cause mining pools to ramp up their hashrate to 120 terrahash in december.

again price does not ramp up hashrate. but hashrate does ramp up sustainable price...

So franky:



I never said to pump water up to fill the reservoirs
I was strictly talking about efficiency in your golden example.

Rather than recycling the water that guy will eliminate from the x floor, it's more efficient to let him pee at the entrance than having the elevator carrying him with the extra weight.


Franky, let's stick to the Danube since I've brought this up.
The Danube drops 32 meters from the Iron gates in 1000 km.
You will have to dig 20 times more earth than the Panama canal to create a dam and deepen the river bed to make the water flow to the sea after the new dam. Not even talking about what will happen to the ports water pumping stations that are going to have to lift water from 30 -20 meter deeper for the population

You're going to spend more energy doing that than the powerplant will produce in a millennium


You're not familiar with how things are in Europe.  ;D
The Canal de la Marne au Rhin has no more than 154 locks, one every 2 km  :D

Switching to hashrate


Everything is right if we consider this a close game.
But when the price goes up, so does the number of miners, which start with new equipment and new costs.


If you really have said something like this....I'm starting to feel disappointed.
You've calculated the costs per BTC? Common!!!



It didn't because there wasn't any miner left to be sold and added to the network.
Price for miners jumped to even 3000$ for a used s9 first generation in December.
If the price goes x10 in a week miners will not be able to add new gear even if they wanted to, mining equipment is not bread, hasn't the last video card shortage taught you that?

The production of bitcoin if it harms the minimum, because in time this pays off, if there was a lot of damage and there was no benefit, then the country would not extract bitcoin.

that will depend on miners . some miners uses a lot of hardwares to make mining profitable and it do uses a lot of energy or electricity , it also causes a lot of noise which can be considerd a polution .

i forgot , the hardware that they use in mining can also cause air polution to the environment .  therfor mining a crypto do have an effect to our mother earth but not as big as the actual mining .

There will always be a negative nature effects in any profitable futures. Bitcoin mining is not an exception. The power consumed by mining bitcoin is one of the effects. Thats why its difficult to engage in bitcoin mining in most of the developing countries  because of the power supplies in those countries is not efficient and power generating there is very cost.
So, essential one of the major things to consider in bitcoin mining should be power generating system.

For one, all that energy is turned into heat, so it can be used for (gasp!) heating. Let’s also not forget that the financial industry, including the segments cryptocurrencies will eventually replace, is also using energy for e.g. the heating and lighting of the buildings where employees work. So, some or most of the energy that bitcoin mining consumes will not come as a surplus but as a displacement.
I also expect cryptocurrencies with more conservative energy use emerge even within the PoW family. For example, it would be interesting to see something where the level of security for a transaction was proportional to its value.

No. Bitcoin mining don't cause environmental damage. It just cost energy. I'm sure about that.

I think it's a huge problem. People saying "but the old system wastes more" don't realize that we should be comparing it to what the next generation of tech can achieve, not to the legacy system.
Both the inflation schedule and the use of PoW are held sacrosanct in BTC circles, so I do not see a clear solution.

Obviously, as long as mining is still profitable, more and more computers will operate and consume more power. Long-term solutions may not be in the alternative, but with the power itself.

again your mentioning the need for elevators.. meaning water has to go up........ (facepalm)
no, no and no. ill say it one more time
it goes downstream. collect in a second area DOWNSTREAM  and goes down again... there is no up

yea you brought up a river thats a crap example and one we both agree is not supportive of such due to cost.
you said it above and you quoted me as i show below. that its about politics and costs and that it would affect the population.. which the electricity demand for the area is not high enough to sway the argument to change that... so why mention the danube.. it has nothing to do with bitcoin mining or hydropower to power bitcoin mining.
no one would be foolish to set up a mining farm in that area..

i am familiar..
im in the UK we have hundreds of canals and thousands of canal locks.. the stupid thing you dont see is you cant use a dam as a 'lock'
a dam is a dam and a lock is a lock. if your going to dam a river you dam a river. boats cant go up
so the only time you dam a river is if the demand for electric outweight the public need for an open river


nope. it does not play out as short term minded as you think
i know your thinking when the price jumped to $20k from novembers lower rate.. that the hashrate must have jumped 3-4fold
no
here ill show you. no spike in december 2017 from
btc.com https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/hashrate/2y?mining_pool=BTC.com&t=a
btc.top https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/hashrate/2y?mining_pool=BTC.TOP&t=a
antpool https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/hashrate/2y?mining_pool=AntPool&t=a

now. here is the thing. the pools above are the main pools that think long term and progress at a periodic growth and when prices go up they dont ramp up more machines 4x and then ramp down just as fast.
Eg the dont ramp up 4x december and ramp down 4x in spring 2018

they make profit and spread it across the year and then progress over the year.
..

now look at these short term pools. you know the ones that now laughingly only have 1% of network hash who are small minded and dont play "the game"
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/hashrate/2y?mining_pool=BTCC+Pool&t=a
as you can see they did foolishly sheep follow the price. ..
and if you were to rmeember last year btcc was one of the big names. now its only 1% of network hashpower.
they switched off too many rigs. sold of too many coins in january and then bought too many rigs in january. tried t run them too soon. and by march they had to drop down their rigs again by march
(facepalm) thus now they are stuck with rigs left to gather dust. and no spare cashflow to play any games with..

yea the recent news that bitmain is in trouble is actually that btcc are in trouble.
bitmain are happy spending money in investing in other companies while btcc is closing down business.. as i said btcc is now in the 1% bracket.


lol im laughing
you should be a comedian

you do know bitmain make them right.

i explained above bitmain and the smart pools play the long game.. its actually BTCC that played the short game buying up rigs and then getting face slapped because they ramped up mining too fast due to december.
- hashrate charts dont lie.-

as i said. its stupid that when you make profit. to spend all your profit just to work harder.. btcc learned that the hard way

where as bitmain that have no ASIC shortage and COULD HAVE ramped up their hashrate in december. but they didnt. they played the long game.

anyway.. the bigger point is not about the ATH but sustaining the LOW which sits above $5800

anyway nice talking to you, enjoyed your diverted comments about rivrs unrelated to mining and the comedy of you thinking water has to go uphill via lifting cups of pee or using elevator analogies.. was real funny you cant grasp the concept of down stream...

but great comedy any.. have a nice day

..... anyway. now that comedy sidetrack is now pushed aside..

bitcoin mining does cost money. yes. and thats what backs up a baseline value.(im not talking about speculative volitile ATH price.. im talking baseling (bottomline) value)
EG if gold mining was free gold purchasing would be cheap

at the moment bitcoin mining does not eat into needed demand of residents. it actually buys the EXCESS (above demand) that power stations produced that just goes to waste if not bought.

power stations love it.

as for asics

in late november the math of cost of mining was exa * 277
in mrch-june. it came down to exa*135
and as of october-november it will be exa *65

thats because the cost of the rig and the electric. and the hashrate of the rig change per batch and generation

in october new asics are coming out which have twice the hashrate. the rigs will cost a bit more but thats offset by the reduction in electric used. thus balancing out. .. but effectively being 2x more efficient

Yes, the world of mining requires a lot of electricity, I think that solar panels can be a solution to save electricity.

This solar panel can be an alternative source of crypto mining energy that is more environmentally friendly, but the price is not cheap. so very rare for miners to use it.

Bitcoin mining is consuming much electricity indeed, but it won't damage our environment as long the power resource for electricity is eco-friendly.
There are many industries that can causing more harm for environment than bitcoin. So i think crypto mining is not bad for environment

Yeah, the Danube is a crap example...let's talk about the Nile, ups.. no good Volga? Amazon? All the Siberian Rivers that flow in the artic? The Ganges? That too has only a 42 meters drop for 800 km.
Actually, it would be better to let you tell me what river (except the Anduin) isn't acting like that.


No, Franky, the question was pretty simple.
Why would a single dam affect transportation on a river where you already have 100 locks...
Because that was one of your reasons why dams are not built by the evil gubbermint.


 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you forking serious?


There is no point in showing me something I DIDN'T think like that.
I already told you, spike doesn't happen like that because miners are not some stuff you can buy from Tesco!
Have you ever ordered one? Did you choose next day shipping? /sarcasm

Of course (1) ! it didn't jump because it takes a month at least to get that miner and in December even pre-orders for March were filled.


Of course (2) !! it doesn't work like that! And I'm not going to repeat myself, you have the answer for this also above.


Of course (3) !!! Because like I was saying (the third time already) there is no spare capacity. Just like in the oil and gas industry. Only a few countries can afford 10% increase even if they want to produce more, there are simply no drilled wells and it takes months to make them.
Just like chips are not printed at home and you need to wait for TMSC to produce another batch.


Thank you, at least being a comedian might lead to a successful carrier, being stubborn is for sure not.

Yes, i am agree that bitcoin mining won't causing damage on our environment. It would be different story if bitcoin mining produce some waste products.
Bitcoin mining only consuming power, i don't see any damage on environment because of this.

Thats the point that mining requires big electricity and long-term electricity use will certainly damage the environment?
especially if the tool you use is damaged? of course it will add damage to the environment right. but the effect will not be too large I think

Actually, almost everything we use/consume is killing the nature, but we can't stop using all the technologies and go back to the dark age, can we? Yes, Hydro Electricity is a solution, Wind Turbines and Solar can be other means, too.

The high cost involved in mining bitcoin is really surprising to me. This will lead to the establishment of more planets.The activities of burning high volumes of fossil fuel to drive some of these plants lead to environmental pollution. Now too many pollutions have to lead to global warming and change in the weather pattern nowadays. These negative implications affect the rainfall pattern and crops plantations.

Don't know what some people are worried about, the following industries have been allowed to ruin the world and environment in far worse ways for decades or even longer.

There will always be a negative natural effect in any lucrative future. The power consumed by bitcoin extraction is one of the effects. Therefore, one of the important things to consider in bitcoin mining is the energy generating system. Let's not forget that the financial industry, including the last segment of e-money, will also be using energy for example. Thus, some or most of the energy consumed by bitcoin extraction will not come as a surplus but as a shift. For instance, it would be interesting to see something that the security level for a transaction is proportional to its value.

Consumption is the reason why it is difficult to engage in bitcoin mining in most developing countries because their energy supply is ineffective and generates electricity at very high costs. For one, all that energy is turned into heat, so it can be used for heating (panting). Thus, some or most of the energy consumed by bitcoin extraction will not come as a surplus but as a shift. For instance, it would be interesting to see something that the security level for a transaction is proportional to its value. It only consumes energy.

Whenever a new technology has introduced in the market, also it receives the two responses that is one group is in the favour of bitcoin and other in the against of it and the same is happening now the most of the population is in the favour of bitcoin and a small group of people are in against of bitcoin and this is the rumours spread by them that in coming decade bitcoin will use twice the amount of electricity as use by the entire world currently and I think this news is practically impossible.

On some side, Yes , because the extraction of Bitcoin , go resources, these resources we draw from mother earth ! But it is not so global as emissions from cars and etc, it is necessary to begin to change to mankind instead of development ! If every a will throw out garbage where it is necessary and not in the forest or river that is!

water and oil are not the same. once you use oil its gone. when water goes through a turbine. water still exists. thus can be reused.
and if reservoir one has a capacity of 365 million litres. reservoir two doesnt need to be 365million litres.
infact it doesnt even need to be 1 million litres to catch a day of R1's daily run off to double a day.
all it needs is a small narrow run-through that water flows to create pressure (you know make the tip of a hosepipe smaller than its beginning so that the pressure rises.

as you say its more about price. and if you done some maths. china's production is multiple percent above demand. and that excess goes to waste unused, unpaid for. so power stations are loving that bitcoin farms are buying the excess.
the power stations make profit. and now make more. they could use it to create extra production. but demand is not there to push/sway them into using the many many many techniques to re-use water after its gone through a dam.
and yes there are many ways. that dont need to rely on depth/height/gravity

EG
lets say a steel turbine is heavy and needs Xpsi pressure to move it. to then spin a electro magnet of 100 coils.
your mindset thinks Y water is needed and Z height for gravity to produce Xpsi.

yet.. if you shrink the nosel of the water pipe. = less water needed to produce same pressure
yet.. if you use a lighter material for the turbine = less pressure needed = less watr needed
yet.. if you add more coils in the electro magnet = less water needed

EG make the turbine lighter and electromagnet bigger then water becomes less of the issue

Depends on how you receive electricity, if through Hydroelectric power plants , using solar or wind batteries that drive, but if using heat power station, causing damage.

Absolutely no. Mining requires electricity, like many electrical appliances of our time. If there is harm, it is equal to the harm caused by electrical appliances in the house combined: refrigerator, microwave, TV, computer, etc.

Only when the involved parties utilise eco-friendly power generation can we truly say it doesn't contribute to environmental damage. Mining is notoriously known to consume a whole lot of energy compared to the appliances we use at home so they basically contribute in the generation of more electricity which is majorly from fossil fuels, a known contributor to global warming.

I believe the thing that makes Bitcoin environment friendly is its limited use and interest compared to banks. But the interest in banks could go down when there will be more corrupt people. And any new market leader in crypto could devalue, because when it tries to be regulated, people might see the coin as corrupt. Then in some way nothing stops crypto from taking more energy.

I mean, other things in life that consume energy seem to have an upper limit in theory. I do not expect the world to produce less steel for the same amount of energy in future. You may want more steel, IT infrastructure and services or anything. But there is an end because you need at least space. I don't see an end like this for hashrate growth. There is a coin limit in the Bitcoin design, but why would anyone be stopped from making use of a new coin with the same characteristicts like Bitcoin in the mining phase. There will probably be some economic cycle and hashrate growth will go on.

I am not buying it. There are more industry that affect the environment compared to mining Bitcoin. Mining gold, metals and rocks are way more distractive in the environment. Even bank transactions consume more electricity than mining Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is now widely used and popular. Bitcoin demand can increase as more production increases. But it will not do any harm to the environment. Because the irrigation used here is environmentally friendly.

I think that the view that bitcoin impact on environmental pollution is another ploy of skeptics. Look at the state of the world now. Do you really think that bitcoin is to blame for all environmental problems, or it can somehow aggravate the situation? No.

If it really causes some kind of damage to the environment, this harm is negligible. Moreover, for more useful bitcoin mining, you can use modern alternative methods of electricity production - windmills. It all depends on who is engaged in mining. The extraction of bitkin can really be made more environmentally friendly, if you want.

It seems to me that bitcoin will not make the ecological situation in our world worse. There are much more dangerous factors - factories, the release of debris into the oceans, space debris and so on. And the production of bitkin in this whole variety of environmental harm-a drop in the sea.

Compared to other sources of pollution, bitcoin seems quite harmless. The more that its good qualities far exceed the potential harms that it can inflict. Therefore, I do not consider this a serious problem for bitcoin.

I personally don't believe Bitcoin mining causes any special environmental damage. It uses regular electricity just like every other electrical appliances. If the source of the power is clean energy e.g solar, then there will be no damage whatsoever to the environment.

I do not think this is true. Bitcoin cannot harm ecology. At least against the background of huge production lines. This is ridiculous))

I believe that bitcoin does not bring harm. It consumes a large amount of electricity (because to work with cryptocurrencies need powerful computer processors), but it does not affect the environment.

I dont believe bitcoin cause environment damages. Most miner prefer using alternative energy rather than fossil energy. Beside that, miners using not much energy rather than other factory

I think this damaging environment aspect of bitcoin mining  is another ploy by the governments and their agents to continue destroying bitcoin. How many people are even in cryptocurrency among the worlds population. Iam sure that if crypto compliant men and women are about  1000, those in mining arm of bitcoin is not upto 10% of the crypto population. How will their mining activities  destroy the environments while there are other business whose activities is responsible for the depleted ozone layer. Nobody is talking about them but bitcoin is only activity that will destroy the environment.

Bug miners in the world are using environmental friendly to minimize the cost of electricity. There are more threatening activities than mining Bitcoin like Literally mining gold, silver and rocks. They should focus more on the main problem nor the slightest one. 

If bitcoin mining was causing huge damage for our environmental, it would not be sustain any longer now.
There are so many bitcoin miners in the world, but our environment is still good.
If you look at the industrial companies, it will be more causing damage for our environment than bitcoin mining.

of course mining does not damage the environment, because mining does not produce waste or disruptive dirt. mining only requires large electricity and certain rooms so that comfort is maintained.

The key point is using electricity to mine bitcoin. Bitcoin is just one of the thousands of things that use electricity. If mining bitcoin destroys the environment that means any time you switch on your TV, or any gadget that uses electricity, then you are destroying the environment as alleged. However my source of electricity when mining bitcoin is not clearly stated. I could be using solar or hydrogen cell, etc to be mining my bitcoin. The assumption that mining bitcoin destroys the environment is just a target only on bitcoin, meanwhile before bitcoin existed electricity have been used to power many gadgets that are DESTROYING THE ENVIRONMENT?

Yeah, i dont think bitcoin mining causing environmental damage. There are many miners using friendly resources to mining so they don't consume energy too much. To sustain cryptocurrency mining, we need to create more alternate energy sources such as solar energy to get more electricity power.

I don't think so, bitcoin mining contributes a relatively small amount to environmental pollution. There are larger industries in many parts of the world who are affecting the environment in the negative sense through pollution. I believe the future of bitcoin mining is even brighter as many projects plan on producing a cleaner source of energy.

- Agreed that there are many miners using friendly energy sources and less harmful to the environment but if we bring this number to compare with the number of bitcoin miners in the world, it is still too low. Most miners around the world really do not care about the environment, they only care about their money and investment, they invest a lot of money in mining equipment and what they need is the maximum benefit, especially the Chinese miners, they use energy to exploit by burning coal and generating electricity, environmental pollution through bitcoin mining is higher than ever

I think the damage from bitcoin is exaggerated. In the world there are a lot of unnecessary things that would not be worth spending electricity and other resources. For example, a huge amount of advertising. It could be reduced and help the environment. Therefore it is not necessary to call bitcoin the root of all evil. That's not so.

Bitcoin mining doesnt use small energy but it does actually uses a large  portion or high high kilo watt power because mining is a powerful act especially if done with bitcoin due to its difficulty . miners cannot possibly mine a bitcoin succesfully if they will only use low powered hardwares  but they can mine other cryptos specifically altcoins like monero .

But i still agree on some points that you gave .  other companies and factories are more damaging than compared to crypto mining because they are litterally using a high powered devices or machines that can both cause air pollution and noise pollution .

Absolutely correct, only a percentage of the electricity consumption of the entire world is consumed by miners. Considerering that other countries' electricity is produced through nuclear power plants.

 i see alot of people talk about this problem. and they show us the consenquence from mining

Each and every profitable investment has caused damage to the nature in some way. The damage caused by mining bitcoins are very negligible compared to that. Negative news and promotions are just a agenda for tarnishing bitcoin's reputation.

I am honestly not sure HOW but then I am not exactly the MASTER about this stuff, so I don’t exactly know what the logic is. However, IF we want to really understand about it then we need to get proper Bitcoin mining guide (https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-mining-everything-you-need-to-know/), then only it will be possible to understand these things. It’s not EASY but very much doable IF we are determined and dedicated towards doing things, which is absolutely not easy.

It is just ignorance that make people to say what they don't have full detail about. The same way factories and industries consume electricity is the same way bitcoin mining farm consume.

Bitcoin is the first digital currency in the world and even it is developed to fulfill future financial needs we have to understand that it can certainly drain some energy during its process but it is certainly acceptable when considering benefits and advantages it provides for businesses and individuals who involved with them so what I think instead of making accusations against bitcoin environmental damage people should find a way to reduce it by using latest technological methods because existence of bitcoin is essential to the world which many don't see at the moment but in the future it will be clearly visible   

Without a doubt and i agree with you that many miners are leaving bitcoin mining because the low income and higher waste of electricity but which also led to environmental damage but we should understand that we are living in a time that most of the things are becoming possible at least for some extend through technology and its advancements so why cant we use that to reduce the environmental damage which cause by bitcoin and making bitcoin mining more profitable using sustainable mining methods which should be very possible specially today   

Mining is done mostly on the regions where electricity is available for less price. As the price has fallen low with the increased difficulty the profiting through mining isn't possible on regions with high electricity price. Here environmental damage is there, but the same can be eliminated through the usage of renewable energy sources for electricity production for mining needs.