Bitcoin and global warming

[benjiw]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

[1715079848]

1715079848

[1715079848]

1715079848

[Zendalet]

The whole global economy is based on mining and burning energy resources that have been stored within the earth for millions of years. Bitcoin is based on the one reliable thing in life: greed. It is foolish to expect people not taking the shortest (-sighted) route to monetary wealth. That is why I am suspicious about crypto energy projects.

[howard.ashoul]

You could say it about everything.

Gold mining is causing global warming and is harming environment.
Money printing is causing global warming and is making rain forest to disappear.

...


We would have to go back on the trees.. .

[qwertyup23]

The idea of switching into a cryptocurrency payment may sound good, but the drawbacks are highly toxic especially when it comes to hacking and scamming due to its nature. You may be right that the process of making fiat and gold mining harm the environment but if we adapt the system of payment into digitalized forms, this would create chaos into the economies of countries around the world. We may lessen the the impact of pollution around the world slowly, but in an economic perspective this would destroy markets and may cause hyperinflation in some countries.

[Zendalet]

if we adapt the system of payment into digitalized forms, this would create chaos into the economies of countries around the world.

Why would that create chaos? Are you talking about banking the unbanked?

How is whatever you said related to switching from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake?

[jseverson]

I do think this will be addressed in the future. It's not talked about much yet, but if this blows up and the social justice warriors get a hold of it, Bitcoin will have another reputation problem in its hands. This would give governments around the world another excuse to tighten mining regulations, or ban Bitcoin altogether. I don't think its impact is significant in the grand scheme of things yet, but at the rate the consumption is going, it will only take a few years.

I should also note that this is yet another area where Bitcoin falls behind other alts. Some openly use energy efficiency and green initiatives as selling points. They're not a threat now, but they could very well be in the future.

[Saifher]

This subject has only surfaced very recently and i think it could be a big problem in the future as bitcoin price surges (and hashrate along with it). Right now it is estimated that it costs over a thousand dollars to "mint" a bitcoin, its an insane amount of electric power.

For this reason i believe PoS or DPoS might be the best approaches in the future (or something better will be invented)

[Zendalet]

If energy isn't used by Bitcoin it will be used by something else. The whole economy is based on infinite growth, so it'd be extremely altruistic to reduce energy consumption for the greater good. What's really needed is clean energy research.

[kueyen]

Does anyone know/have any figures about the total power consumption that bitcoin requires currently? It should be high I'm sure, and should also go even higher in the future. However, compared to other industries, where does bitcoin rank exactly? I would assume bitcoin's power consumption still ranks lower in comparison to most of the business sectors.

[iamTom123]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin. Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it. If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could dramatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowadays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

The amount of energy used in mining Bitcoin is a valid issue that should be addressed head-on and there are many ways we can mitigate this challenge. One, if possible the source of the energy should be renewable as much as possible like those coming from the sun, wind, water and even geothermal since these are considered to be greener and have less impact on the environment. Second, we need to support the research on finding new technology (or improving the existing ones) so that mining equipment are requiring less power and along this line there are already some companies or business racing to be the first to introduce the products on the market.

We have to remember that Bitcoin mining is an economic activity just like any ordinary business all around us and it is requiring electricity to run and be successful. Well, the same thing with any other industry so this is nothing unique to Bitcoin. We are then hoping that sooner or later a better technology can be introduced that can be run with less power requirement and that renewable energy sources would also be accessible by the whole industry.

[redcucumber]

their is an ICO that is focused in making our environment clean and is concern in protecting the environment such a great project that is more meaningful and great for profiting in trades.. its the Earth Token much broad than ecobit i saw this in the alts section and with this bitcoin community can be both rich in money while having a clean environment, hence i was not promoting but the idea is really good try checking it

[ir.yance]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

Briefly The whole global economy is based on the source of the mining and burning energy that has been stored on Earth for millions of years. Bitcoin is based on one thing that is reliable in life so so I know about this

[Carlton Banks]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.

Unfortunately, anthropogenic climate disaster is based on bad science, deviously fabricated by corrupt scientists and (bug surprise) the world's most honest profession; politicians.


It's not a scientific movement, it's a religion. Because the people involved do the precise same thing that religious zealots/fundamentalists do; when their beliefs are questioned with rationality or empirical evidence, climate disaster believers simply attack the person saying it. Which is not science.


The "End of the World" has been predicted by charlatans selling something fake to foolish adherents since time immemorial. For some strange reason, these people never go out of business

[stompix]

1. I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities.
....
2 .To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

1. Not even close. If you compare bitcoin mining to the electric consumption for the biggest malls in China you will be amazed how puny the numbers behind bitcoin mining are. If you're going to compare the pollution and add naval shipment in the equation you will find out that bitcoin is the LAST of our problems.

2. Involvement in the distribution of the future bitcoins would mean we have yet again come closer to a centralized coin where somebody is taking decisions as he sees fit.

3. What have you done yourself to save the Earth?

[bloodyvio]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.

I think mining cryptocurrency activity is still not comparable with carbon monoxide gas from motor vehicles, greenhouse effect, forest destruction, industrial electricity usage etc.

[leonair]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.

[soham]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.

Unfortunately, anthropogenic climate disaster is based on bad science, deviously fabricated by corrupt scientists and (bug surprise) the world's most honest profession; politicians.


It's not a scientific movement, it's a religion. Because the people involved do the precise same thing that religious zealots/fundamentalists do; when their beliefs are questioned with rationality or empirical evidence, climate disaster believers simply attack the person saying it. Which is not science.


The "End of the World" has been predicted by charlatans selling something fake to foolish adherents since time immemorial. For some strange reason, these people never go out of business

I do agree with you. It is not right to make only bitcoin responsible for the global warming or the electricity consumption on large scale. Production industries, heavy engineering industries and chemical factories contributes a larger chunk of green house gas emission. Also in the developing countries like China, India and Brazil, a lot of factories are running without proper environmental norms or any proper equipment to filter the polluted air. This kind of factories contribute more in the global warming.

Also it is easy for a miner to move to a different source of energy by investing in solar panels. And most of the miners will have to do it within next few years because global electricity market is becoming costlier day by day considering the depleting natural resources like coal, which is used by all thermal power plants. Installing  solar panels would be costlier initially, but it will increase the profitability of the mining for sure.

[sidebyside]

I think this will happen in the future. Many people will race to get bitcoin. with a high value. Bitcoins are mined in various forms. This is also a good opportunity for criminals to steal fraud. This is not just a matter of a country but of the world.

[TomCrypto]

Indeed bitcoin mining have a quite small impact compared to the industry and the fossil energy used on the whole world. But it's not negligible neither.
In 2017 Bitcoin mining seems to have consumed around 30 TwH of electricity : https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
This consumption is superior to the consumption of electricity in small country like oman / nigeria....
So it's not really negligible!

This electricity could roughly power up more than 2 million households on the US!!
the ratio cost of electricity used for mining / profit of mining  is around 5!!

There have to be solution to tend to a decentralized crypto but with some energy efficiency and green concept behind it.

[gabmen]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.

I think its very minimal or even neglectable to what really affects global.warming on a major scale. He focus should be in a more bigger scale and mining btc is the least among those.

[miyaka26]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.

You can compare it to a bunch of vehicles that produce polluted smoke to big factories that contributes the biggest volume of waste and pollution on earth thus Government doesn't take a precautionary action against them because it produces money for them.

Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only.

That's correct one of the alternative ways is POS that can be more cost-effective and can save a bunch of energy to prevent more pollution but the idea of stopping monetary creation can bring chaos to a country as the majority of firms are dependent by this system.

[mk4]

It's true that a good amount of electricity is being used just by running mining hardware/rigs. But I think this is really irrelevant overall, knowing that there are power plants and other stuff out there that consumes a hundred-fold more electricity compared to GPUs and ASICs.

[trecore4]

I think you are right at this point but there nothing much we can do that easily. People are filled with the greed of earning big money and they will never stop the mining operation because the whole crypto currency will get disturbed like that. There won’t be any easier way to do the transaction if this stops and the electricity will still be needed today or after a decade from now.


There is option of using the solar energy but as we know our miners are real monsters and they can’t get feed on the solar panels as they are very very weak in this regard providing the sufficient electricity. Well lets see where this matter goes in the future and hopefully this will get solved soon. Otherwise the operations for mining will stop surely.

[Andre_Goldman]

electricity wastage is not that big stake ... plastic industry for instance have much more social debit I guess

[oegarod]

It's true that a good amount of electricity is being used just by running mining hardware/rigs. But I think this is really irrelevant overall, knowing that there are power plants and other stuff out there that consumes a hundred-fold more electricity compared to GPUs and ASICs.

Yes, the electricity consumption is truly a big factor that might contribute at least a small portion to the global warming. Maybe in the future electricity for the usage of mining might be produced from renewable energy sources which will not affect the environment to higher extent.

[Pfizer]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.

I think its very minimal or even neglectable to what really affects global.warming on a major scale. He focus should be in a more bigger scale and mining btc is the least among those.

Yeah it should be low respectively to the other projects using electricity. Bitcoin's production is not that huge and don't consume that much electricity. Think about giant oil production points, they consume tons of electricity.

Bitcoin is still environmental friendly.

[Andre_Goldman]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.

I think its very minimal or even neglectable to what really affects global.warming on a major scale. He focus should be in a more bigger scale and mining btc is the least among those.

Yeah it should be low respectively to the other projects using electricity. Bitcoin's production is not that huge and don't consume that much electricity. Think about giant oil production points, they consume tons of electricity.

Bitcoin is still environmental friendly.

you can get electricity from renewable sources or not ...

[baedrill]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.

I think its very minimal or even neglectable to what really affects global.warming on a major scale. He focus should be in a more bigger scale and mining btc is the least among those.

Yeah it should be low respectively to the other projects using electricity. Bitcoin's production is not that huge and don't consume that much electricity. Think about giant oil production points, they consume tons of electricity.

Bitcoin is still environmental friendly.

That's not exactly true. Bitcoin's energy consumption has gone above some countries. Granted, these countries are more on the underdeveloped side, but its consumption is growing steadily, and it may come to a point that it can't be ignored anymore.

[yugyug]

In any form of industry contributes global warming as it consumes more heat, more fuel and more electricity consumption. From mining, manufacturing, oil exploration, medical, agricultural, space, military, car and vehicle industry these are the greater contributor to global warming. Bitcoin industry is just a minimal contribution it might be negligible of about 1 percent i guess.

[yulionoo]

oh man. glad to read that.
you know every people make global warming, like when i online via handphone and my handphone warm up. it make global warming.
i think they are not related one of other thing. except if you mining bitcoin with smoked stuff

[Hydrogen]

With bitcoin and climate change the main issues are #1 emissions and #2 carbon sequestration.

There has been a shift towards so called renewable energy which is promoted as being environmentally friendly. This negates bitcoin's electrical consumption to a good degree.

The main issue with climate change involves 80% of the world's natural forests being cut down. Trees naturally store (sequester) carbon. The destruction of forests reduces the planet's ability to store carbon emitted into the atmosphere.

Another major issue is a large percentage of rainfall being produced by forests. Water is pulled from the earth and evaporated through the leaves of trees/plants. This produces rainfall. Cutting down large swaths of forest reduces water which would normally be evaporated which in turn produces drought.

The only legitimate methods of addressing climate change are afforestation programs. Seed bombing. Fighting desertification. Basically planting trees and protecting rain forests.

[TomCrypto]

But the problem here is that bitcoin could be mined with less energy consumption for the same result.
You cannot compare industry that produce product for real world that need energy to be produce (even if there is more green way to produce it) to bitcoin that produce wealth virtually.
Bitcoin increased mining difficulty over time is a bad way of doing it, energitically speaking.

[Angelia46]

This does have a certain impact, after all, mining will consume energy, but these consumption to some extent can be avoided, POS and POW mechanism is different, is to change the problem

[Zendalet]

With bitcoin and climate change the main issues are #1 emissions and #2 carbon sequestration.

There has been a shift towards so called renewable energy which is promoted as being environmentally friendly. This negates bitcoin's electrical consumption to a good degree.

The main issue with climate change involves 80% of the world's natural forests being cut down. Trees naturally store (sequester) carbon. The destruction of forests reduces the planet's ability to store carbon emitted into the atmosphere.

Another major issue is a large percentage of rainfall being produced by forests. Water is pulled from the earth and evaporated through the leaves of trees/plants. This produces rainfall. Cutting down large swaths of forest reduces water which would normally be evaporated which in turn produces drought.

The only legitimate methods of addressing climate change are afforestation programs. Seed bombing. Fighting desertification. Basically planting trees and protecting rain forests.

Then I have bad news for you. Deforestation is poised to become worse as the world has decided trees are a source of renewable energy.

[thulisman]

In part, if you think about exploiting bitcoin, it affects the power source. But the reality of global warming is largely due to the growing industrial activity around the world. Deforestation in poor and developing countries is also stressful.

[Zendalet]

You can also consider secondary effects from cryptocurrencies. If it helps to increase wealth in poor nations, consumption may rise too. It's only fair they get to enjoy the luxury that rich nations have enjoyed for centuries, but it does mean the world has to find a way to cope with the consequences of higher resources demand and energy use.

[ene1980]

The idea of switching into a cryptocurrency payment may sound good, but the drawbacks are highly toxic especially when it comes to hacking and scamming due to its nature. You may be right that the process of making fiat and gold mining harm the environment but if we adapt the system of payment into digitalized forms, this would create chaos into the economies of countries around the world. We may lessen the the impact of pollution around the world slowly, but in an economic perspective this would destroy markets and may cause hyperinflation in some countries.

I would like to hear about the major drawbacks you are talking about,having a decentralized currency might reduce the inflation factor you are talking about,do you think that the fiat currency will cure the economic crises ,bitcoin mining does cost energy and will it affect the entire global climate ,it is minimal considering the fact that there are other damaging things going on in the industrial world.

[lucifochrome]

This may be bad for the environment, yeah you are right about that but bitcoin is just a piece of the puzzle, there are other contributing factors that affect the environment not just bitcoin. if electricity is just the problem; i meant if that is the thing that is destroying the environment then we should have went back to the darker days but that is not the problem here. I think it is the pollution that is emitted by the factories that produces plastic or other toxic substance, mining bitcoin may have effects to the environment but it is just small; what is emitted by the miners are just heat and not smog.

[ImHash]

I have been hot lately, is this the real reason behind it then? Please guys stop mining so much, I am suffering here half way around the world, Have mercy on flowers and trees I think if BIG Wu stops mining so much of bitcoin and bitcoin cash all together we could feel the chill on earth.
Do you know how many nukes have been detonated for testing purposes?

[william8829]

Does anyone know/have any figures about the total power consumption that bitcoin requires currently? It should be high I'm sure, and should also go even higher in the future. However, compared to other industries, where does bitcoin rank exactly? I would assume bitcoin's power consumption still ranks lower in comparison to most of the business sectors.

a constant total mining draw of just over one gigawatt...That means that, at a minimum, worldwide Bitcoin mining could power the daily needs of 821,940 average American homes.

I would say that qualifies as high.  You could also look at it as giving people jobs. Bitmain makes money selling antminers, miners make money mining and power companies make money selling electricity.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywbbpm/bitcoin-mining-electricity-consumption-ethereum-energy-climate-change

[filharvey]

Countries which do not find any allegations against bitcoin to ban it may use such complaints as global mining due to bitcoin mining to ban bitcoins.We know very well if we want to avoid global warming,we would have to ban lots of ongoing projects today and it would definitely seem to be illogical to do so.But no one would agree to stop mining reward which is given to miners.

[BurtW]

...but in an economic perspective this would destroy markets and may cause hyperinflation in some countries.

By definition and design Bitcoin cannot experience hyperinflation.  So, you must be talking about hyperinflation of a country's government or central bank issued fiat currency as people dump that crap for something better.  You cannot blame the hyperinflation of an unstable government run fiat currency on Bitcoin.  The fault would land squarely on the fiat currency or more specifically the government or central bank mismanagement and misuse of said currency.

A long time ago I derived a formula to estimate the amount of energy the miners will attempt to use based on the assumption that, on average, the mining sector will burn as much energy as they can afford to burn:

P = (6(50/2^e) + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW]

where:

x = exchange rate [USD/BTC]
e = era [0..32] (we are currently in era 2)
f = average fees per hour [BTC/hour]
c = cost of energy [USD/kWh]
g = average gross profit margin [unitless ratio]

Here is a quick stab at the numbers.  If you think you have more accurate numbers put them in the formula and see what you get.

x = $8,800 per BTC
f = 6 x 1.25 = 7.5 BTC/hour
c = $0.10 per kWh
g = 0.1 miner gross profit margin

P = (6(50/2²) + 7.5)(8800)(1-0.1)/0.1
   = (6(12.5) + 7.5)(8800)(0.9)/0.1
   = (82.5)(8800)(0.9)/0.1
   = 6,534,000 kW
   = 6.534 GW

So at $8,800 per BTC the mining sector will attempt to burn about 6 GW.  They may not get there due to shortages of miners, build out delays, etc. but they will try.

[lenovop-70]

Wow this serious problems i think,
We all need money, but how we get money without destroying our ecosystem.
maybe developer out there should give us more solution about this.
global warming is really serious problem for our planet anyway 

[BelieveInBitcoin]

Wow this serious problems i think,
We all need money, but how we get money without destroying our ecosystem.
maybe developer out there should give us more solution about this.
global warming is really serious problem for our planet anyway  

I run our house from a renewable supply (when I changed tariff it was actually a bit cheaper). When I do mining, therefore, it's all renewable. It's not hard - you just have to choose to change.

[Domenc]

Definitely, the rising demand of Bitcoin miners has lead to increase in the demand of electricity which further creates heat, which impacts upon global warming. Recently, it was discovered that energy used by Bitcoin miner is equivalent to 150 countries usage, such a large extent of consumption of power has surely lead harmful impacts upon environment also. But the positive side is that many people are  shifting to renewable energy and converting heat energy exhausted by machines in valuable resources like warming their houses.

[Malaya]

Well, if we will just discuss about the electricty consumption most especially to bitcoin mining, I think this should not be an issue because there are renewable energies now that can be also used to have electricty in doing so. In fact we all know that it is not just bitcoin that really gets people attention to spend energy resources but sooooo many still out there.

[pacamobradillo]

bitcoin and global warming, global warming is a very hot issue nowadays, it affects a lot of us, our health or our lives every day.
The warming of the world is determined by the people themselves, by our actions and actions when exploiting the resource mines.
Bitcoin is a hot topic nowadays, because the bitcoin price is too high...

[bitfocus]

What would you say about Solar Powered Envion Mobile Mining Units or Hydro Power based mining? If I see your way, your online presence is also causing Global Warming. Not only this, Every tech you use, every processed food you eat, every cloth you wear causing serious damage to the climate. Please try to be a little logical. Maybe you are one of those who just hate Bitcoin, but, please come with something solid.

[Javanewstar]

Don't put all the environmental problems of lai to COINS, over the years I have heard too much, everything related to environmental protection, but dig for almost have no effect on the influence of environmental protection, do not have a one-sided view.

[Naoko]

the lack of bitcoin and mining will not improve the situation...If people really wanted to prevent the destruction of the Earth, we could for a short time go to alternative sources...but it is not profitable for anyone...there is no point in attributing bitcoin here

[Bolt Brownie]

I don't agree with you and you are not seeing the whole point here. I'm not saying that solutions to reduce the electricity cost of mining should not be searched, but saying that the cost of mining is an argument against bitcoin is wrong in my opinion. If you think about it, the fiat system infrastructure consumes way much electricity than bitcoin mining. Are you saying that governments will shut down Banks, ATMs, the Visa and MasterCard network, exchanges, stock markets, etc? They only serve the fiat system purpose, and mining serves the bitcoin purpose. It's not that different. Both are important to society from my perspective, so the cost in mining is just.
Yes, we need to use renewable energy sources, etc, but that apply to everything and not just bitcoin mining.

[Kotone]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

Well yes if you are talking about mining for gold and how it affects the environment then that is true. however if we are integrating the payment for bitcoin it can affect acou try in a bad way especially if those countries are not able to integrate bitcoin correctly

[jcojci]

the problem of mining bitcoin is electricity and as we know, the electricity is the main problem for global warming and it makes us search another energy that could be used for mining bitcoin. but until we can find new energy, we still use the electricity to continue mining. without researching new technology that will cover the electricity, global warming will come fast and if we can use wind, water, or another energy to support the electricity to mining, then it will reduce the global warming.

[Quickfant]

Bitcoin miners for the green party could just run their miners off of solar panels if they have the money to do so. If they have a hydro plant or a wind turbine farm they could also do it that way. Bitcoin mining is just like having a computer at full throttle on for 24/7 and I doubt the majority of people are going to go green to support their farm unless its better for profit in the long term.

[Snub]

amount of electricity that is used for BTC minig is too small to say that it can somehow affect global warming.
But as for me it woould be great if there will be some kind of law that all miners should spend 20% of electricity that they use for mining for cooling the Earth))

[levvv]

You could say it about everything.

Gold mining is causing global warming and is harming environment.
Money printing is causing global warming and is making rain forest to disappear.

...


We would have to go back on the trees.. .

i agree with you, i think the physical money production causing more global warming than virtual money like bitcoin and other crypto currencies.

[shiv06]

Bitcoin and global warning, global warning is a very hot issue nowadays, it affects a lot of us, our health our live every day. Bitcoin is a hot topic nowadays, because the bitcoin price very high.

[BurtW]

...but in an economic perspective this would destroy markets and may cause hyperinflation in some countries.

By definition and design Bitcoin cannot experience hyperinflation.  So, you must be talking about hyperinflation of a country's government or central bank issued fiat currency as people dump that crap for something better.  You cannot blame the hyperinflation of an unstable government run fiat currency on Bitcoin.  The fault would land squarely on the fiat currency or more specifically the government or central bank mismanagement and misuse of said currency.

A long time ago I derived a formula to estimate the amount of energy the miners will attempt to use based on the assumption that, on average, the mining sector will burn as much energy as they can afford to burn:

P = (6(50/2^e) + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW]

where:

x = exchange rate [USD/BTC]
e = era [0..32] (we are currently in era 2)
f = average fees per hour [BTC/hour]
c = cost of energy [USD/kWh]
g = average gross profit margin [unitless ratio]

Here is a quick stab at the numbers.  If you think you have more accurate numbers put them in the formula and see what you get.

x = $8,800 per BTC
f = 6 x 1.25 = 7.5 BTC/hour
c = $0.10 per kWh
g = 0.1 miner gross profit margin

P = (6(50/2²) + 7.5)(8800)(1-0.1)/0.1
   = (6(12.5) + 7.5)(8800)(0.9)/0.1
   = (82.5)(8800)(0.9)/0.1
   = 6,534,000 kW
   = 6.534 GW

So at $8,800 per BTC the mining sector will attempt to burn about 6 GW.  They may not get there due to shortages of miners, build out delays, etc. but they will try.

Holy crap this thread is overrun by spam.  I have created a spam free version of this thread for anyone who wishes to discuss this more seriously/mathematically:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2465881.0

[Alamin9884]

I do think this will be addressed in the future. Gold mining is causing global warming and is herming environment.I think or head problem is the huge electricity expens induced by mining and it's noxious effect on the climate.

[Dean_Jue]

Yes, somehow it does.  Actually, as cryptocurrency is all digital and working digitally saves trees from being cut for fiat currencies and documents. 
White papers and online transactions solve these kinds of wastage and can act as a perfect replacement for paper money and documents. I like the idea to trade digitally, it is hassle-free, saves energy and is the most convenient method.

[Amafunkiest]

There are other things causing global warming  even if bitcoin is a cause it will be a minute cause

[dorofeev]

The whole global economy is based on mining and burning energy resources that have been stored within the earth for millions of years. Bitcoin is based on the one reliable thing in life: greed. It is foolish to expect people not taking the shortest (-sighted) route to monetary wealth. That is why I am suspicious about crypto energy projects.

Still we have to look for a balance. We cannot stop all the economic activities as now we are competing with the rest of the world.

[leostrong.mo]

The carbon dioxide pollution caused by BTC mining is almost negligible compared with the traditional industrial carbon dioxide production!
Compared to the exploitation of oil, gold mining, BTC mining is very environmentally friendly!

[royalfamily1000]

The carbon dioxide pollution caused by BTC mining is almost negligible compared with the traditional industrial carbon dioxide production!
Compared to the exploitation of oil, gold mining, BTC mining is very environmentally friendly!

I think electricity is not really a problem in Bitcoin mining because there are so many invention today that can really help our mother earth and in terms of electricty we can now use solar panels to generate electriciy and you don't need to burned trees or use gasoline that creates smokes.

[bitllionaire]

The carbon dioxide pollution caused by BTC mining is almost negligible compared with the traditional industrial carbon dioxide production!
Compared to the exploitation of oil, gold mining, BTC mining is very environmentally friendly!

Yes i also cannot see any effect of BTC on global warming, there are a lot of other ways which are responsible for global warming and if it will not be control the situation will get more serious, but anyhow bitcoin or any other altcoin is not responsible for global warming, mining tool are contributing negligible amount of global warming.

[toast]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

according to my thinking every technological development and progress of that era always affect global warming of course, I think all can not be avoided from all that

[Che454010]

the impact that bitcoin mining has on the world around us is a droplet in the ocean compared to other industries, don't worry about this

[Lingqingyi]

I don't think the environmental problems associated with bitcoin mining are serious, and people overstate it.
With many more serious industrial pollution causing global warming, don't blame bitcoin too much.

[budi691]

slightly different if I see the discussion between Bitcoin and Global Warming, but it will be compatible if bitcoin is associated with the current financial crisis. however, if we are bitcoin users participate in the global warming crisis, it's a must!

[carlisle1]

If energy isn't used by Bitcoin it will be used by something else. The whole economy is based on infinite growth, so it'd be extremely altruistic to reduce energy consumption for the greater good. What's really needed is clean energy research.

It came to your mouth that if bitcoin mining didnt use the electricity theres another will use it,that means this is created to be used and just happen that miners take it,and besides we pay for every consumption of the energy and i believe its enough that blame put on miners for energy conservation system.

[Kakmakr]

I don't think the environmental problems associated with bitcoin mining are serious, and people overstate it.
With many more serious industrial pollution causing global warming, don't blame bitcoin too much.

They over emphasize it, because it suits their agenda to discredit Bitcoin in the public eye. People with hidden agendas are taking blows at Bitcoin from all sides. Why do they hammer on the electrical cost of mining for instance, but they forget how environment unfriendly the manufacturing of coins and fiat money are.

They have to get the metal ore out of the ground and they have to cut down trees for the paper based fiat money. 

[gabmen]

The carbon dioxide pollution caused by BTC mining is almost negligible compared with the traditional industrial carbon dioxide production!
Compared to the exploitation of oil, gold mining, BTC mining is very environmentally friendly!

Yes i also cannot see any effect of BTC on global warming, there are a lot of other ways which are responsible for global warming and if it will not be control the situation will get more serious, but anyhow bitcoin or any other altcoin is not responsible for global warming, mining tool are contributing negligible amount of global warming.

Lol. Some people just enjoy throwing things in btc's way. I agree that those concerned about global warming have a lot more sources to look at than mining, which as you've said, is negligible at best. No considerable connection between the two.

[daarul50]

The carbon dioxide pollution caused by BTC mining is almost negligible compared with the traditional industrial carbon dioxide production!
Compared to the exploitation of oil, gold mining, BTC mining is very environmentally friendly!

I think electricity is not really a problem in Bitcoin mining because there are so many invention today that can really help our mother earth and in terms of electricty we can now use solar panels to generate electriciy and you don't need to burned trees or use gasoline that creates smokes.

Therefore, a technology that has the nature of interdependence, a technology can not stand alone without the existence of other technologies that can support it, as well as bitcoin mining, if this technology is combined with new technologies, especially in terms of alternative power supplies, the blockchain will become one of the most up-to-date technologies to use as the safest data storage and unmanageable by anyone except by its users.

[ucingucingan]

I think bitcoin production does not contribute much to global warming, gold mining, industrial plants and forest clearance is a big cause of global warming, because now many solar power plants that tend to be environmentally friendly

[jcojci]

I think bitcoin and global warming is not related because bitcoin will stay as independent and not interfere with the others. the mining process is different things than bitcoin and I think if we can use the other energy, we can save electricity for another thing. right now, bitcoin is only available in the internet and bitcoin doesn't have a physical form so it's different than gold mining or something else.

[BigWinner87]

Bitcoin has nothing to do with it.
energy company can produce clean energy but a lot of them continue to produce energy with fossil fuels.
Bitcoin can consume electricity coming from clean energy... it depends by energy producers!
I hate people who see bitcoin is a wasteful of energy, they do not understand absolutely nothing!!!

[buternasek]

Countries which do not find any allegations against bitcoin to ban it may use such complaints as global mining due to bitcoin mining to ban bitcoins.We know very well if we want to avoid global warming,we would have to ban lots of ongoing projects today and it would definitely seem to be illogical to do so.But no one would agree to stop mining reward which is given to miners.

[CHENIEN]

Electricity is not the main reason why there are forms of global warming, mining industry of bitcoin or in cryptocurrency are only a business that naturally used high electricity usage but it doesn't mean that it can cause global warming, the causes of global warming are those big plantation with excessive black smoke that causes high poluted air and destructed the ozone layer of the sun. And the solution is tree planting and stop cutting of trees.

[jcarlo]

Bitcoin mining need huge electricity. But i dont think that will affecting on global warming because the capacity is smaller than manufacture. Beside that, miner can use renewable energy that not affecting on global warming

[mucutkeren]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.

[Jombrangs]

I think the bitcoin can make some CSR or known as customer service relationship,
helping the nature by itself to recover from continuous destruction is a big thing not just for you but for the entire world

[Vart4varta]

On the example of China, you can see how mining bitcoin can damage the global ecology. Now more than 60% of all computer technology in China is used in the production of bitcoins. In this country, most of the electricity is produced by burning coal.
As a result of coal combustion, carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere increase. This gas is the main factor of global warming. Accordingly, the increase in electricity consumption by the miners can lead to an increase in electricity generation by burning coal in China, which provokes negative environmental changes.

[thevlox]

Bitcoin is a famous cryptocurrency. other currency of the price rise to get out of bitcoin of on depends by. because bitcoin all at the top of a coin. global warming is every day world in a lot of the part of carbon dioxide of creation is with, and a lot of harmful gas. and the due to the global warming the dimensions of the leads.

[takadada]

The BTC is heating up, and it has a strong legal base. Bitcoin has led to an increase in demand for electricity, which generates heat, which in turn affects global warming. It has recently been discovered that the energy used by bitcoin miners is equivalent to 150 user countries, and such energy consumption is likely to lead to harmful effects on the environment.

[bajarang8668]

Bitcoin mining uses a lot of mining hardware and they required electricity so global warming increases. And also the competition of bitcoin mining or altcoin mining increase difficulty it"s also increases global warming.

[The Scorpion]

Renewable energy sources can be a solution
 And Most of the advanced countries are already moving towards renewable sources of energy. To fuel the energy need for cryptocurrency mining, renewable sources of energy may not be highly reliable because of the following drawbacks they have:
•   Bigger infrastructure
•   Not as efficient as fossil fuels in energy production
•   Getting 100 % efficiency can be challenging
•   Always reliable on weather conditions and other natural phenomenon
•   They are inconsistent and difficult to predict in terms of output

If the above mentioned problems are sorted, then we will be able to make use of renewable resources to mine cryptocurrencies. I personally believe that cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology is going to be future for all the sectors in the world. It will be great if we be little more responsible and look for a solution to handle the energy, climate and global warming issues.

[markleal]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

Hi there benjiw! Yes indeed, mining bitcoin need a lot of power or energy which mostly came from a diesel power plant. Other have utilized nuclear power plant which is also hazardous to the environment. But recently there are a lot of miners that are transitioning from coal, diesel or nuc to a renewable energy. I am talking about the solar and wind energy. The initial investment could be much higher than the common source or electricity but it would be more rewarding after three or four years. Those miners who use renewable energy could have much higher income compared to those who are on the grid. Additionally, those miners help to prevent global warming.

[musta5a]

I think the bitcoin can make some CSR or known as customer service relationship,
helping the nature by itself to recover from continuous destruction is a big thing not just for you but for the entire world

we need to care about the environment too. It would make most sense to use green sources of energy for bitcoin mining instead of some coal burnt electricity and similar sources...

[stompix]

I think the bitcoin can make some CSR or known as customer service relationship,
helping the nature by itself to recover from continuous destruction is a big thing not just for you but for the entire world

It's going probably to be the first currency with customer support.
So who is going to employ these guys answering the phones? Satoshi?

we need to care about the environment too. It would make most sense to use green sources of energy for bitcoin mining instead of some coal burnt electricity and similar sources...

Energy consumption is a zero game.
If somebody burns green energy then somebody else must burn "dirty" energy as coal or oil or nuclear.
If you add a consumer and you don't increase production in green energy then it's going to be bad.

And nobody can decide what kind of energy you use if you're connected to the grid, even if you're 25 km away from a hydroelectric plant you might get the energy that was produced by a coal plant.

Beside that, miner can use renewable energy that not affecting on global warming

Yeah, the lie of the century.

[takesomethingaway]

Money printing causes global warming and makes rain forests disappear. You could be right that the process of making fiat and gold harm the environment but if we adjust the billing system to digitized forms, this will create turmoil in the economies of those countries. world.

[hakertajniak]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

I dont think bitcoin mining will bring a massive impact of our climate. Bitcoin mining only cost electricity and produce heat.
If you compare it with fiat money production, they have more waste product than bitcoin.
Proof of stake is good, but i still prefer with proof of work because it is using external resources.

[jcojci]

I only know that for mining bitcoin, it uses electricity which will be gone in the future so we need to search another energy to still mining bitcoin and the other coins. and I am sure that we can solve this problem so we can reduce global warming and we can still continue to mining bitcoin until the last bitcoin which need more than 50 years. but this is only for the biggest mining company that needs another energy and meanwhile, the rest of the people don't have to worry about this and they can do another thing in their daily life.

[Nunoluck]

Do not think narrowly, there are still many causes of global warming which result in greater impact than bitcoin operation. There are many things that we can do to stop globall warmings, we can reduce the usage of paper because many trees are being cut down for that, we can help the earth by reduce the usage of paper by give more support for bitcoin and reduce the usage of paper money.

[copperton]

Bitcoin alone is not responsible for global warming u want to say when mining is doing then electricity consumption harm our environment but only this is not also printing currency,Gold Production,cloth manufacturing and vehicles is also responsible, bitcoin is the future currency and its really helpful for our economy so don't relate bitcoin with global warming.

[neite99]

For sure there are many industries that consume much more electricity than the miners, but this can`t resonate the huge consumption of electricity by miners, the solution have to come and there are ways but first the greed must be controlled I beleive.

[eolitic]

I agree that global warming is a very important and dangerous issue. But what about global pollution, rubbish island which is bigger than France. The problem is much more serious that you have described here. It's just a tiny part of the harm we are doing to our planet. You are offering to stop mining and be happy with what we already have. Ok, let's say we are done, no more mining. Do you think it will change the situation? no, it won't. So if we want to save our planet, we need to think globally, forbid plastic, forbid oil mining, forbid the usage of chemicals, forbid forests devastation, forbid killing of animals. But nobody will agree to do this, so we are going to extinct soon. I feel really sorry for what we've done because of our greed and selfishness.

[Gameroid]

Bitcoin alone is not responsible for global warming u want to say when mining is doing then electricity consumption harm our environment but only this is not also printing currency,Gold Production,cloth manufacturing and vehicles is also responsible, bitcoin is the future currency and its really helpful for our economy so don't relate bitcoin with global warming.

Yes it is right that bitcoin do not have effect on global warming, bitcoin is only a currency but still in most of the places people do not have any idea about it, i think that very soon bitcoin will become popular and then all the people of the world will start using bitcoin.

[Gdra467]

I know a blockchain ICO trying to fix the problem of huge electricity demand problem of bitcoin mining. There may be other projects in or out of blockchain trying to solve this problem too. It very likely that these projects will succeed because of the high demand for cheaper source of energy for mining activities.

[crustycrab666]

Energy for mining is quite an impact on the environment. So I see there are many mining projects that carry environmentally friendly projects by utilizing a variety of alternative energy.

[BlackHills41]

Money printing cause global warming. I don't think btc never affect global warming neither.

[Daybreak76]

The craze of btc will surely be the cause of global warming.

[RingWiki65]

I think the bitcoin can make some CSR so they can help the nature from destruction. It will be helpful.

[Edward Wilkins]

 I don’t think mining contributes to global warming.
 People usually forget the following fact:
"Fiat requires commercial banks, central banks, ATMs, armored cars, hundreds of thousands of employees, among other things to work. The central bank, in this case the FED, does not magically distribute the US dollar to every person in the country at their doorstep."
 This is interesting, because even mining methods can be solved to decrease energy consumption. Also blockchain can help at the distribution of renewable energy, using smart contracts. Other applications of blockchain can also contribute for business and generally, to the democratization of the global economy. I see more pros than cons to society, if you balance !

[Sydney Chapman]

Maybe. Because each bitcoin transaction requires a tremendous amount of computing power, each Bitcoin transfer uses enough energy to run a comfortable house, and everything in it, for nearly a week. Bitcoin miners worldwide are using about enough electricity to at any given time to power about 2.26 million American homes. Since a good deal of this is coming from burning coal and other fossil fuels, that is a lot of CO2 being put into he air.

[Kate Beckett]

Mining of bitcoins can accelerate global warming. The central place in the existence of bitcoin is the mining of this crypto currency. To carry out such work requires a large amount of electricity. Most of the electricity is produced by burning coal. As a result of coal combustion, carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere increase. This gas is the main factor of global warming.

[ngalamunan]

Energy for mining is quite an impact on the environment. So I see there are many mining projects that carry environmentally friendly projects by utilizing a variety of alternative energy.

at this time such a project quite a lot, because at this time the miner was also quite familiar with bitcoin. so the more here the miners will surely be more and more, but such mining is diverse

[degelio]

As far as i know Banking system has a worst impact to the enviroment than Bitcoin

[stayeduptolate]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

I don’t think that bitcoin has nothing to do with global warming as bitcoin and global warming are entirely two different topics but yes I heard this rumours too about bitcoin then in the coming decade bitcoin is going to use double the amount of electricity as used by the entire world then in turn bitcoin could be responsible for the global warming but I want to say that just once think about this that is it ever possible that bitcoin is consuming that amount of electricity, all I think is that this is a rumour only spread by one of the bitcoin hater.

[ListingOnly561]

Btc and global warming are two different side. Those won't make any difference.

[OffGrid54]

Well the popularity of btc is huge. Lots of person are now involve in btc. I don't think the body temperature of those person won't be a cause of global warming.

[polyballz]

I think that electrical energy is okay if it is used for positive things, if the electrical energy is not used for bitcoin mining, this energy will be used for other things, because the common sipat, for example to support online games that are now crowded. but this is great for anticipating future global warming.

[ComaJoma]

Unfortunately, it seems to be true and mining contributes a great deal to our climate change. But it's not the only factor and I believe the decision-makers around the world are aware of and working on it. At least, I like to think so...

[Doctor4You]

Come on! That sounds ridiculous! What do you mean Bitcoin can consume more energy and do more harm to the nature than coal mining, oil refineries, landfills and other non-btc-related stuff which probably far outweighs the potential damage Bitcoin might be doing to nature?
Sounds prejudiced.
But don't get me wrong, I do know it has an adverse effect on Nature. Just don't want to exaggerate and shift the responsibility onto bitcoin alone. I believe all people MUST think more carefully about the environment.

[joelou]

I think bitcoin is not responsible for global warming.  I think the reason why and the responsible for global warming all factory and  because the big volume of public vehicles.

[Hammer45head]

I don't think Bitcoin is the only factor in global warming, but it is definitely one of the most significant factors contributing to it.

[kwusu]

Electricity is very vital as far as bitcoin and cryptocurrency mining is concern. Bitcoin mining consumes a lot of energy which in one way or the other adversely affect our environment and increases tariff too. Energy are force to be produced to meet the demand of high energy consumption by the mining machines. It is good the the 4new project has come which aim at solving this energy crisis in crypto mining and the hazard we are exposed to during energy production.

[Kunal666456]

the cryptocurrency website Digiconomics said that worldwide bitcoin mining was using more electricity than Serbia. The country. Writing for Grist, Eric Holthaus calculated that by July 2019, the Bitcoin peer-to-peer network—remember BitTorrent? Like that—would require more electricity than all of the United States. And by November of 2020, it’d use more electricity than the entire world does today.

 It means Bitcoin emits the equivalent of 17.7 million tons of carbon dioxide every year.

[semimall]

in some countries crypto money mining is growing astronomically and electricity consumption is increasing. governments and electricity producers should focus more on this issue.

[djcounter]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

The cost of mining electricity is far less than the cost of printing banknote.

[Jessica2009]

  Bitcoin is a  cryptocurrency  with secret computer online currency that has no physical form as fiat currency  . We have to buy Bitcoin  from exchanges online or by mining . Cryptocurrency is said to becoming a major contributor  to the man made global warming .There are predictions that Bitcoin consumes more electric current for mining Bitcoin the massive use of energy conception leads to global warming . Now Bitcoin miners says that Bitcoin mining causes more electric consuming  that have to lead to global warming .

[pabpete]

As far as i know Banking system has a worst impact to the enviroment than Bitcoin

Yes and there are a lot of bigger problems than just bitcoin so we cannot speculate that this has the biggest impact on our coin (global warming).

[cizatext]

Well that is base on your assumption bit let me ask this fundamental question have you try to take into consideration the impact of the external forceyon bitcoin mining such as the government policies that may make mining almost impossible and also the high cost of mining activities and how high electricity billing may be in the host region, so trying to compensate the active miner may be I drop in an ocean.

[CryptoFeller]

Bitcoin transaction and mining consumes a lot of computing power and electricity. Therefore depending  on how the energy used to power the computers are derived, it could contribute to global warming.
Thus when it involves the elimination of green house gases.

[nick_nick]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.

I think mining cryptocurrency activity is still not comparable with carbon monoxide gas from motor vehicles, greenhouse effect, forest destruction, industrial electricity usage etc.

I highly support this assertion. The extent of pollution caused by motor vehicles and other carbon monoxide emitted gadgets can never be compared to mining of cryptocurrencies. Although mining has some noxious effect on the climate, the most cause of global warming has not been bitcoin mining.

[sevenonetwo]

Yeah, bitcoin mining requires very large electrical energy. One of the impacts of the magnitude of electrical energy is global warming. Indeed, the massive and continuous use of energy is very bad, especially for the defense of our earth. But global warming is not solely the result of bitcoin mining. A lot of factories that operate with electricity are also quite large and not environmentally friendly. Not to mention the use of non-environmentally friendly electricity which is done in a closed manner. Indeed as connoisseurs of energy we must be wise in using energy that we can save from ourselves. So it's not only the miners who are wrong but our role is also in maintaining energy.

[niteroy]

The production of 1 BTC is really expensive and in some countries the cost can be even greater. The fact is that mining equipment ensures the stability and security of the entire Bitcoin network. I think that for example the banking sector, Visa/Mastercard service costs more than Bitcoin's network service and involves more people than Bitcoin.

[Raggie]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

I thing global warming is caused by O3, mining bitcoin not producing that kind of waste.
Another thing causing global warming is the heat. The power generator for electricity is not produce heat too much.

[p4npos]

Instead of putting their entire focus on Bitcoin and global warming impact, the governments should regulate the industries and factories that are puffing smoke for fun. They should not get involved in politics and lobbying and put their time in regulating the laws and regulations.

[Fineyokoma]

Yes, I think that BTC is the great solution to fix this issue. We will cut down less trees and use more online transactions to send money

[tracy2233]

I think all the developments and technologies around the world are somehow affecting the mother nature in their own terms. Similarly, Bitcoin mining is. There is need to think out of box how the efficient technology can be used without degrading the mother nature. By adapting and adopting the safe energy consumption methods and reducing the carbon contents we can go long way with anything and can make bitcoin=/= global warming.
                                                                                                                             

[iv4n]

The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century, bitcoin will not speed or slow that changes. Nations around the world are upping their game in the fight against climate change, but what we really need is green energy, or renewable energy. Bitcoin as new technology will be combined with new technologies for renewable energy, many types of renewable energy resources such as wind and solar energy are constantly replenished and will never run out. Energy from sun and thermal water. there are a lot of green energy around us, bitcoin will have to be combined with them. Just to give you info that you didn`t know maybe, Iceland is the only country in the world that obtains 100% of it`s energy from renewable resources, its currently like that, but in future many countries will be there.

[Masatos]

by the way, in fact, everything is correctly described by the author. how much energy should be spent on the vital activity of the entire crypto industry and how this can badly affect the ecology

[alexsandre]

Bitcoin is now a frequent topic for discussion and with bitcoin you can get a good profit if you know how to work with bitcoin

[Heather Santos]

Mining Bitcoin needs  little energy, not enough to become a reason which lead to global warming. Because  evoking global warming concludes of many factors such as cacbon dioxit, gas from factories, vehicles and so on. What we need now is change to protect environment but not to stop mining Bitcoin.

[mekie]

The only  way to minimise your carbon footprint while mining, is by buying your electricity from a supplier who supplies % renewables generated electricity-certainly in the U.K. there are a number of such companies. These companies ise either solar, wind or other sources of energy to generate power.

[CrimBit]

Cannot be denied if the entire global economy is based on the source of mining and burning energy that has been stored on Earth for millions of years. and it is also true that large amounts of electricity are used only by running mining / rig hardware. But I think this is totally irrelevant overall, knowing that there are power plants and other items out there that consume one hundred times more electricity than GPUs and ASICs.

[Odlanyer]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming because it will use energy and electricity expense should be one of our priorities and the countries which do not find any allegations against bitcoin to ban it may use such complaints as global mining due to bitcoin mining to ban bitcoins.

[tungaqhd]

In fact, banks use more electricity to work than mining coins and keeping server online and banks need server online too. There are many new technology that can help cryptocurrency save more electricity.

[iMark]

As far as i know Banking system has a worst impact to the enviroment than Bitcoin

Yes and there are a lot of bigger problems than just bitcoin so we cannot speculate that this has the biggest impact on our coin (global warming).

Lol how can the banking system make global warming, can you explain the reason? in my opinion there is no direct correlation between the bank or bitcoin system with global warming or the environment, banks use online systems as well as bitcoin, is that bad for the environment?

[xcajun21]

It will probably change with LN and all that. I think the issue is who holds the majority of the network. If the average joe decides to stop using other electronic devices in his home, but rather mine... it is not a problem. Is a problem if highly profitable mining facilities use bitcoin mining inefficiencies to gain this profit from their massive clusters of mining equipment that only requiring a few people. I can mine and also plant trees in my garden. I am not a big facility to have this problem.

[ChronoLite]

Bitcoin is now a frequent topic for discussion and with bitcoin you can get a good profit if you know how to work with bitcoin

This is nonsense. What are you talking about.

In fact, banks use more electricity to work than mining coins and keeping server online and banks need server online too. There are many new technology that can help cryptocurrency save more electricity.

Well yea. Electricity can cause global warming by making chemistry stuff and blowing up to the atmosphere. but there is nothing we can do with this situation.

[colork]

I think that bitcoin and global warming are in no way connected, this is nonsense

[Emilyp]

The huge energy consumption of bitcoin mining is huge and it's really a huge concern to a number of people. I do hope that something is done urgently in that aspect although many miners are shifting towards alternative eco-friendly energy sources to power their mining equipments.

[Usafstar]

I think bitcoin is not industrial product which contribute to the global warming and i think that bitcoin is the currency which is better the economy and it is the crypto so it is not transported through vehicles and other ways.
bitcoin is good for those who have no other course of income while through this forum bitcoin donation is good for the society i think it is contributing much to the economy while it is not taking any thing from them in reward.

[Rosa Paula]

Bitcoin is really a well-known cryptocurrency. additional cryptocurrency from the cost increase in order to get free from bitcoin associated with upon is dependent through. simply because of bitcoin just about all towards the top of the gold coin. worldwide heating is actually every single day globe within many of the parts of co2 associated with development is by using, and lots of dangerous gasoline. and also the because of the worldwide heating the actual measurements from the prospects.

[rudox]

I do not see the reason why we should not  try the alternatives if what is being done now is harming the environment. The atmosphere is only one we have now and seriously if we care for our existence and for the future generations we must do the best by keeping the environment safe and friendly. Have we consider all other sources of energy like solar, wind, and hydro source which is devoid of hydrocarbon that deplete the ozone  layer. If we are real on saving the environment let us try green energy sources for bitcoin mining.

[Destroyeroff98]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

I agree with you.
But Bitcoin miners can use "green" energy. For example, wind turbines or solar panels.
It will be more profitable and will not so strongly affect the environment.
What do you think about this?

[Allura74]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

I agree with you.
But Bitcoin miners can use "green" energy. For example, wind turbines or solar panels.
It will be more profitable and will not so strongly affect the environment.
What do you think about this?

Yes, even though we can't deny the fact that bitcoin needs energy by mining on every transaction but still there is always an option to use energy with environmental friendly like as what mentioned wind mill, solar energy and hydro power source, so we can't site bitcoin as a main contributor of global warming.

[halfmil]

Anyone that believes global warming is a man made phenomenon doesn't understand what the earth has went through for the last 300,000 years. I would recommend watching Joe Rogans podcast episode 606 with Randall Carlson who is someone that knows what they are talking about when it comes to climate change. The greenland ice core project proves global warming is BS. Global warming is just a political ideology. Big business and lots of money.

[Beatrix77]

Bitcoin mining is seriously impacting the environment as the Bitcoin price increase has increased the demand for electricity to exploit the world's largest electronic money. Bitcoin's performance is much better than regular e-commerce. This is partly due to the fact that the price of the Cryptocurrency is directly affected by the amount of electricity used to mine it. 77 KWH is the minimum power for a virtual currency transaction. In addition to energy consumption, Bitcoin also has a significant impact on the environment because of carbon emissions. According to data obtained from a Bitcoin mining facility in Mongolia. When mining a BTC, this facility will emit about 8,000 to 13,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide, nearly 24,000 to 40,000 kilograms of CO2 for one hour of mining. Thus, on the road to becoming the most valuable currency and payment system. Credible decentralization, BTC is challenging the increasingly scarce and seriously damaged energy sources.

[halfmil]

Bitcoin mining is seriously impacting the environment as the Bitcoin price increase has increased the demand for electricity to exploit the world's largest electronic money. Bitcoin's performance is much better than regular e-commerce. This is partly due to the fact that the price of the Cryptocurrency is directly affected by the amount of electricity used to mine it. 77 KWH is the minimum power for a virtual currency transaction. In addition to energy consumption, Bitcoin also has a significant impact on the environment because of carbon emissions. According to data obtained from a Bitcoin mining facility in Mongolia. When mining a BTC, this facility will emit about 8,000 to 13,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide, nearly 24,000 to 40,000 kilograms of CO2 for one hour of mining. Thus, on the road to becoming the most valuable currency and payment system. Credible decentralization, BTC is challenging the increasingly scarce and seriously damaged energy sources.

1/10th of 1% of the worlds electricity is not a concern. It is laughable that anyone is even concerned about this.

[musta5a]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

it's something to ponder for sure. Although the argument that bitcoin cosumes more energy than traditional banks won't stand as it's not true at all, we still need to do something about miners

[AristoteI]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

I do not quite understand what you are offering. After all, if the miners do not do their job, it will mean that the Bitcoin network will cease to exist. Who will be engaged in finding the next block and how will it be included in the blockchain? How do you think this will happen?

[margaret22]

Bitcoin has become famous of the revolutionary proof of work solution. It is truly sad, thad it uses so much energy, but still could not imagine Bitcoin using other protocol.

[oceantiger]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

I will not like what i love like bitcoin to be a source of danger to life. So i will suggest that a different source of energy  for bitcoin mining should be explored so that the environment will be saved from green house effect. There are several other source that energy can be sourced , example we can get energy from solar, from the wind and hydro sources. I believe with a little push mining could be sustained with energy from these sources.

[screenist.io]

Some interesting research on this subject from 'Katrina Kelly-Pitou'

"Electricity production can increase while still maintaining a minimal impact on the environment. Rather than focusing on how much energy Bitcoin uses, the discussion should center around who indeed is producing it – and where their power comes from." 

"did we ask this question before the internet grew globally? "

"Banks use up electricity an estimated 100 terawatts/y (branches, computing atms etc)"

"If Bitcoin technology were to mature by more than 100 times its current market size, it would still equal only 2 percent of all energy consumption."

[eashikde]

Indeed, Bitcoin has led to an increase in demand for electricity, which produces heat, which, in turn, affects global warming. But now many projects are being developed that want to introduce environmentally friendly fuel obtained from the sun, wind and water. Thanks to such developments, we can avoid any problems without harming nature.

[bitcoinVPSD]

This is a very important issue and worth mentioning here. I think many people really do not care about this. Bitcoin mining negatively affects our environment and global warming due to the amount of electricity consumed in factories. This is a concern and we should limit the construction of bitcoin plants to protect our environment

[bonker]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

Not interested in your mad-cap commie globalist "global warming" hoax

[mitchel_am]

I think bitcoin is not the number one reason of the global warming. Almost everything we do can cause that. Mining is revolutionary and it is the future.

[tim_took]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

The majority of ICOs I've invested in recently are using green energy. Actually, that was a huge argument for.

[Inikoo]

This huge energy consumption is bad for the Earth, but good for many parties, and so do not think it will be changed. Enourmos companies are already behind.

[deppil]

This huge energy consumption is bad for the Earth, but good for many parties, and so do not think it will be changed. Enourmos companies are already behind.

Come on man. bitcoin only contributes little to the electricity used. after all the world will be more advanced and electricity as the main resource for using bitcoin and primary resources will certainly be increasingly innovated. many companies are beginning to innovate with solar electricity or other innovations. so I don't think bitcoin is bad environment

[BitBite5]

I can say for myself that I care much about ecology and think this is really huge problem but on the other hand I don't think bitcoin is so big electricity consumer. Some other activities and industries are much more dangerous in that sense and the percentage that is used for bitcoin mining is not considerable.
Still in the future maybe some alternative solution could be found.

[RickeyRush]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.

[Sultanar484]

The world economy is based on paper currencies in most of the countries like USA, China, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and others. We know paper currencies are made of wood and when we cut wood, oxygen decreases and carbon-dioxide increases and carbon-dioxide is one of the main reason of global warming ( caused by afforestation). So, paper currency is more liable of global warming than Digital Currencies.

[halfmil]

Global warming is mostly a leftest political ideology and there is plenty of fake news out there about it. There is also a lot of evidence suggesting we are heading the opposite direction towards another ice age cycle.

[jbarcenas18]

For me, I don't think that bitcoin mining have a big impact on global warming. It is the nuclear bomb testing and smoke belching that really contribute of global warming. Each one of us care about global warming and want to help by reducing and recycling.

[kucritt]

The whole global economy is based on mining and burning energy resources that have been stored within the earth for millions of years. Bitcoin is based on the one reliable thing in life: greed. It is foolish to expect people not taking the shortest (-sighted) route to monetary wealth. That is why I am suspicious about crypto energy projects.

i agree with you global warming is happen because of greed people and foolish people that want to make profit by themslevese without care about the condition in the world, use more energy is makes global warming happen

[CoinsGazer]

The relationship between bitcoin and energy has always been complicated. The claim about excessive energy consumption may be a bit exaggerated. At least there is not enough speech to prove that global warming has anything to do with mining. But the development of virtual currency needs to move towards sustainability, encourage new innovations that reduce emissions, and inspire some people to develop carbon-neutral currencies.

[fuer44]

stop mining activities with high spec hardware which costs a lot of electricity. make bitcoin a fair industry, with all those who become investors with relatively similar capital.

[mornabo]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.

Excessive use of electricity will also affect the environment, I would think that mining is also bad for the environment because its need much energy and electricity, but if you only use bitcoin for transactions or trade, it doesn't use too much electricity, so it doesn't give bad effects and global warming

[sultanGol]

Changing the Bitcoin creation mechanism by decreasing the total amount of Bitcoin is something, which is against the basic idea of Bitcoin, never going to happen IMO.

[Favemanji]

I strongly recommend that the source of the energy used in Bitcoin Mining should mostly come from renewable energy, like those coming from the sun, wind, water, etc they can really be of great help...

[muarip]

stop mining activities with high spec hardware which costs a lot of electricity. make bitcoin a fair industry, with all those who become investors with relatively similar capital.

It becomes one of the things that makes global warming even higher on this earth and it's true because hardware that takes up a lot of electricity will make it happen.

[Burogh]

I strongly recommend that the source of the energy used in Bitcoin Mining should mostly come from renewable energy, like those coming from the sun, wind, water, etc they can really be of great help...

I am believe bitcoin electricity consumption not too large. Its true if thats a problem, we can use alternative energy as power source because we are living on innovation era. With renewable energy, we have cheaper cost on electricity

[cc80aa]

yes, bitcoin can contributed to the global warming because more energy use can cause effect in our environment like mining bitcoin we can use more energy to fast in mining.china more people are going in mining and they are using coal energy and can cause more effect in our environment.

we have a new study to lesser energy consumption in mining bitcoin, proposing decarbonzing bitcoin : law and policy choices for reducing the energy consumption of blockchain technologies and digital currencies.

Bitcoin is here to stay, and so future models must be designed without reliance on energy consumption so disproportionate on their economic or social benefits.

[jcojci]

I think bitcoin is not related to global warming and I believe there is another thing that can cause global warming. The electricity for bitcoin mining is less than the total electricity in all country, but if because of bitcoin mining, global warming is on everywhere, then we can convert the electricity by using another source. I am sure that we can use wind power, water power to convert into electricity so the bitcoin mining process can continue and we can reduce the electricity for another thing.

[AniviaBtc]

I think bitcoin is not industrial product which contribute to the global warming and i think that bitcoin is the currency which is better the economy and it is the crypto so it is not transported through vehicles and other ways.
bitcoin is good for those who have no other course of income while through this forum bitcoin donation is good for the society i think it is contributing much to the economy while it is not taking any thing from them in reward.

Got a point. But we cannot remove the fact that people needs energy in every actions involving the usage of machines or technology. But then we should take the opportunity having cryptocurrency or bitcoin to finance researches that will solve those kind of problems. On the other side, i guess global warming is inevitable too just like death.

[randall_boss]

Yes, there is more and more evident that the cost to mine bitcoin is actually more expensive than bitcoin itself - which, in reality, makes it impossible to make money if you mine your own bitcoin. Additionally, it is bad for the environment - neither of those sound good to me

[TontomHit]

As I know, Bitcoin consumes more energy, than my whole country. Yes, it is a problem, but not sure, if it could be changeda, as it also makes the system secure IMO.

[Impulseboy]

Does anyone know/have any figures about the total power consumption that bitcoin requires currently? It should be high I'm sure, and should also go even higher in the future. However, compared to other industries, where does bitcoin rank exactly? I would assume bitcoin's power consumption still ranks lower in comparison to most of the business sectors.

What about using solar panels to mine bitcoins? Do you think that this will help alleviate the power consumption when mining bitcoins? So far, this is the only solution I can think of. What do you think? Will it suffice?

[raking]

Nothing is perfect. You should know that each country's paper money is valuable worldwide, but to produce it loses a lot of natural resources but it still has many advantages over cryptocurrency. Printing money against money and fraud on the Internet, more importantly the value of paper money is always stable.

[xtrump101]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

gold mining consumes more electricity until each finish product for about 20% more than the bitcoin accordong to research you can google it to verify, so i wonder why electricity consumption on mining bitcoin becomes an issue and not for gold?

[Luke_Turner]

the thing about electricity is that until we are presented with options about power consumption alternative, there's nothing much that we can do but use electricity when mining bitcoins. Unless there are some renewable energy that we can use as electricity, there's not much that we can do to reduce global warming because electricity is needed to mine bitcoins.

[KryptoKai]

This is not going to be a problem in the future as miners move to cheaper forms of energy which is likely to be renewable. Something like solar power or biogas which is better for the environment. Switching to colder climates will reduce airconditioning requirements

[gesdan]

i think at one year ago we can see that there are people that use computer and mining rig to mine bitcoin around the world, and it spend many energy of electricity and makes global warming, but we can see right now, the mining is not popular right now because its not profitable again, so many miners stop mining the bitcoin

[keykey1]

As I know, Bitcoin consumes more energy, than my whole country. Yes, it is a problem, but not sure, if it could be changeda, as it also makes the system secure IMO.

However, it is still very strange to hear (read I mean sure) that somebody finds the connection between Bitcoin mining and global warming. It is nonsense as for me.

[Herbys]

As I know, Bitcoin consumes more energy, than my whole country. Yes, it is a problem, but not sure, if it could be changeda, as it also makes the system secure IMO.

If Bitcoin will facilitate or improve the lives of its users - it is justified.

You need to live comfortably! Better than the population to give up gasoline in favor of electricity.

[sidebyside]

The greed of miners is causing serious problems for the Earth's climate. The amount of electricity supplied to the mining plant is enormous. We need new solutions to minimize this. Perhaps the plant operators should look for green energy sources to protect the environment and reduce pollution.

[WebTera]

I think the percentage of energy consumed to mine bitcoins is negligible compared to the total energy consumed by humanity as a whole. Therefore, we should not assume that this is a serious problem for bitcoins.

[Urbinklin]

Bitcoin does consume quite a lot of energy. But I think there are more serious reasons for environmental problems. And you can not blame in the global warming of bitcoin, which was created recently.

[Emilyp]

I strongly advocate for the abolishment of cryptocurrency mining in general. It contributes to huge consumption of electrical energy and also makes the cost of transactions high compared to fiat and this has been a supporting argument to those who don't crypto.

[bitvelk]

But even taking into account the energy costs of bitcoin mining, it still remains the most profitable coin. The creation of national money also takes material resources and electricity.

[halfmil]

The greed of miners is causing serious problems for the Earth's climate. The amount of electricity supplied to the mining plant is enormous. We need new solutions to minimize this. Perhaps the plant operators should look for green energy sources to protect the environment and reduce pollution.

Again 1/10th of 1% of the worlds electricity is not something to worry about and is not causing any type of temperature change on this planet.

[mekie]

 Bitcoin mining uses electricity-producing electricity causes pollution and global warming, just as mining any resource will. The only way to mine bitcoin in an environmentally friendly  way is by only using renewable energy. Perhaps someone could do a calculation showing the breakeven point using solar and wind generated electricity ie cost of panels and turbines to power a rig to mine 1 bitcoin  

[supelle.born]

The more difficult the bitcoin mining is, the greater machine processing and consequently electricity will be required for the creation of bitcoins and logically this is not favorable for global warming

[randall_boss]

I think that the electricity that is required to mine bitcoin is becoming a climate issue, especially considering the current price of bitcoin. It would hardly be efficient to mine bitcoin, as I imagine electricity costs are probably more than the bitcoin is worth

[Lauren Smith]

There way worse things playing a much bigger part and factor than mere mining. WOrrying about mining causing global warming is silly. Global warming is caused by fumes being left in the atmosphere and improper dumping methods. Basically, global warming is caused by people who want to save money by dumping their crap wherever they feel like it.

The more difficult the bitcoin mining is, the greater machine processing and consequently electricity will be required for the creation of bitcoins and logically this is not favorable for global warming

That not true. Newer miners use only a fraction of the electricity older miners used.

[ZzV1Finn]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

The creation of New bitcoin coins is carried out through mining. Cryptocurrency is issued decentralized. Initially, mining was carried out by computing power of ordinary computers, but with the increasing complexity it became impossible.

[Rozita]

The greed of miners is causing serious problems for the Earth's climate. The amount of electricity supplied to the mining plant is enormous. We need new solutions to minimize this. Perhaps the plant operators should look for green energy sources to protect the environment and reduce pollution.

Again 1/10th of 1% of the worlds electricity is not something to worry about and is not causing any type of temperature change on this planet.

That's not a low amount when we consider the costs and the effects it can have on environment.

[Emily2H]

If in the future the amount of energy that is spent on mining bitcoin will increase tenfold - there may be fears. Now everything is ok

[rindayle]

Yes indeed Bitcoin transactions and mining consume a lot of computing power and electricity, this figure is growing every day. Therefore, depending on how the energy used to power computers is obtained, it can contribute to global warming. But now there are projects with the use of alternative fuels that will not happen to this process.

[zubrr51]

It is possible to direct part of the funds from the Bitcoins turnover to the nature protection fund to address global warming issues.

[hildacitra]

You could say so, but one thing should be highlight is that global warming has been happening long time before Bitcoin or Bitcoin mining existing. So, It is foolish claiming bitcoin causes global warming even though we know that bitcoin mining is consuming much energy of electricity, but it is not the one.

[DJ_Rick]

I think that btc and global warming aren't very connected. Sure that after your explanations it is possible to see a certain connection but i think that it is a difficult question and with time we will see what happen

[ginobitcoiner]

You are too far away when discussing bitcoin (mining) if it is associated with global warming, how much energy is spent by crypto currency miners? Is it comparable to mining other precious metals? the energy used by bitcoin miners is only a small part

[Lexurdania]

I dont believe bitcoin have big contribution to global warming. Bitcoin electricity only using not more than 4% from total capacity and i am believe many miner using alternative energy that friendly to environment

[Assface16678]

You could say it about everything.

Gold mining is causing global warming and is harming environment.
Money printing is causing global warming and is making rain forest to disappear.

...


We would have to go back on the trees.. .

This is true. Mining is one of the main reason why the earth continuously being in chaos. With this, we can absolutely do some alternatives and instead of using physical form lf money, that cut treea to be created we can use bitcoin instead. And might as well plan on making groups that will restore the environment.

[halfmil]

The greed of miners is causing serious problems for the Earth's climate. The amount of electricity supplied to the mining plant is enormous. We need new solutions to minimize this. Perhaps the plant operators should look for green energy sources to protect the environment and reduce pollution.

Again 1/10th of 1% of the worlds electricity is not something to worry about and is not causing any type of temperature change on this planet.

That's not a low amount when we consider the costs and the effects it can have on environment.

BS what exactly is the effect and cost of 1/10th of 1% of electricity on the planet? Exactly how much does that raise the temperature of the earth by?

[SIDDHI777]

I think it will reduce global warming ad environmental damage if it is implemented in every where because the current systems make more environmental damage through wastage of electricity and many other ways 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 bitcoin has nothing to do with global warming or any other environmental damage in the world

[delphic]

A passion for cryptocurrencies goes across the global (in any case, European) trend in energy savings and the fight against "global warming." The fruits of the efforts that over the past decades have been spent on more efficient and environmentally friendly energy, will be “eaten away” by mining mining cryptocurrency in the coming years. This means that it is necessary either to increase the cost of energy by several times, which will hit the real economy and prices for all goods, or significantly increase the energy consumption of humanity. Most likely, both at once. Against this background, any struggle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, etc. - a cheap nonsense. The projections of global warming (and global flooding), which do not take into account the explosive growth of mining, are significantly underestimated. That is, even if the earlier panic about “global warming” was an exaggeration and a fake, then with the rise of “cryptoeconomics” it can really begin.

[larrylegend33]

The biggest question about the Bitcoin mining is: is it worth it i believe.. The spending the electricity for the mining means spending the worlds sources? And the usage raises every new day.. Is it bad or is is good for the earth? There would be many question about that. I believe that the mining is not so necessary i todays world. I have read news about it and it says: When you compared the yearly electricity usage to countries like the Czech Republic, the Bitcoin network uses 102.3 percent of the entire electricity consumed by the country per year..

You can read the full article here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-minings-electricity-bill-is-it-worth-it

[zwiggel]

Yes. Bitcoin is a big electronic currency. It has a huge market capitalization. There are many people who invest in bitcoin. The bitcoin price peaked at $ 20,000. It makes the electronic money market so vibrant. Many companies, large corporations invest in bitcoin.

[TheClownSong]

Its true that Proof of Work coin need more electricity than Proof of Stake. But its creating transparancy in data transaction and its much secure on the data. Right now, we are living in the world with many innovation, i am believe energy alternative that more friendly to environment can used for bitcoin mining because its much cheaper and saving a lot cost

[goodluck0319]

many people implement POS for this, but still I believe that this method does not allow the cryptocurrency to be unique and difficult to produce, so the waste of electricity is one of the disadvantages of cryptocurrencies

[happyme1818]

Global warming is already been a problem ever before  Bitcoin invention. Those who make it a big deal are those people who are against it and paid the mainstream media to make it sensational.

[ranman09]

1. I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities.
....

1. Not even close. If you compare bitcoin mining to the electric consumption for the biggest malls in China you will be amazed how puny the numbers behind bitcoin mining are. If you're going to compare the pollution and add naval shipment in the equation you will find out that bitcoin is the LAST of our problems.
...

1. If this is the case, still we need to make bitcoin green. To help the earth. Or are we, "they're bigger sue them first".

I agree with the usage of more greener electricity sources like wind, water, and sun. We should take part of the responsibility because we live on the same earth.

[M4NDELL]

Indeed, one of the disadvantages of cryptocurrency is the high consumption of energy resources for mining coins. The question will remain unresolved until a way is found to produce a huge amount of electricity without harming the environment.

[reverseflash]

Bitcoin is real, and the most commonly called causes of global warming are not. This question has long been studied and revealed that the average temperature on the planet has repeatedly significantly exceeded current figures, and at that time when electricity and industry were not even suspected. Now, many use the contrived problem to attract attention.

[pavka]

If mining has not become the main cause of ecological catastrophe and global warming, it contributes to its aggravation. It is clear that no one will refuse to extract coins, but you must definitely think of a way to get energy resources in an environmentally friendly manner.

[Sirait]

don't make Bitcoin a suspect, Bitcoin has nothing intercourse with global warming and I don't think mining affects air much, which makes global warming is human. I've seen how forest fires for open land and factory fumes and motorized vehicles pollute the air. hopefully, human activities that make the air dirtier can be reduced.

[cahbagus555]

I dont think bitcoin have global warming issue. Bitcoin only using not more than 1% than total capacity. Beside that, bitcoin miner can use alternative energy that much more lower cost.

[EllenSmith]

digging bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, which is also a cause for the warming of the Earth. But now, with the advancement of science and technology, alternative energy has been used to reduce energy consumption and costs, such as using solar cells.

[jobukegoya]

If mining has not become the main cause of ecological catastrophe and global warming, it contributes to its aggravation. It is clear that no one will refuse to extract coins, but you must definitely think of a way to get energy resources in an environmentally friendly manner.

The relationship between bitcoin and global warming is available in natural resources. Using bitcoin will reduce the felling of trees in the forest which has an impact on the environment, namely preventing flooding, because traditional money is very wasteful of paper and the raw material for paper is wood.

[OSYA]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

I have never thought about this problem. I agree that mining requires high energy consumption. Some of my friends that are mining bitcoins, heat with produced energy the whole house at winter. Basically, they increased electricity consumption but they are saving energy on heating at winter.

[bitfocus]

You can link global worming to almost anything from water petrifaction plants to web servers - why only BTC to blame?

[J Gambler]

Bitcoin mining is really contributing in the global warming but as others are saying even banks are doing the same maybe when the time comes that bitcoin replaced the currency fiat system then it will be an acceptable use of energy and contribution to the global warming.

If bitcoin will be successful, this will lessen the production of paper bills, hence lower the polution from factories and improve our environment. However, for us to produce cryptocurrencies, we need to mine them. So I guess this will still be the same.

[AlexVoron]

I think that production of cryptocurrency and thermal energy which is allocated at the same time process - it very small part from all industrial processes and factories which influence much worse a global warming, than, for example, mining. I want to say as well that I have the friend who invented in his private house the system of heating which works from mining equipment. In such a manner he heats house and engages in production  of cryptocurrency!

[Emily_Davis]

Why are news outlets so hung up on blaming global warming to bitcoin mining? There are a lot of factors contributing to climate change, particularly those that burn fossil fuels. Why blame bitcoin mining? Pretty sure they're doing this just to keep people out of bitcoin and cryptocurrency.

[MMS2017]

Bitcoin is not a dust, smoke, fuel or dangerous gas which can harmful to the world but it is a coin or currency like we use currencies in the world so in my opinion bitcoin is not contributing global warming and soon we will accept it for global trade if we use it we will know it's features and it is money so it can be a complete and current asset.

[thenameisjay]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

I actually think that mining bitcoins nowadays are more environmentally friendly compared to harvesting cotton or paper for paper money. I know it consumes oil and all but the extent of them using it is way smaller than vehicles and factories will ever have to use.

[DanieIssac]

As bitcoin prices increase, diggers will consume more power until the cost of electricity is equal to sales. One solution to this problem is to use economical digging algorithms. bitcoin, bitcoin gold uses a memory-based digging algorithm that consumes less power, though still consumes a lot of energy. In addition, many other money saving virtualization algorithms

[celer]

If mining has not become the main cause of ecological catastrophe and global warming, it contributes to its aggravation. It is clear that no one will refuse to extract coins, but you must definitely think of a way to get energy resources in an environmentally friendly manner.

But mining is much less harmful to the environment than industry that emits toxic substances. Every day mining is not more profitable, so I think that  PoS mining is promising

[bagsat]

Bitcoin is nothing to do with global warming. Global warning is an increase of global temprature which causes climate change. The reason of it are when carbon dioxide, other air pollutants and greenhouse gases collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation that have bounced off the earth’s surface.

[airdnasxela]

I think you have some point especially on the side of electricity because yes,  it is rePpy MN really indeed costly in terms of electricity because of the mining industries that consume a vast amount of electricity. More and more mining industries means more are more users of electricity that can be a contributor to global warming. Yes it is right that for now,  it is not yet a problem because there are not yet too many mining industries but when we reach that point,  maybe that is the time that we can make a solution and even that is the case, we know that is really very hard for us to make a move because there is no really a governing body here that can govern all bitcoin traders and users. So this is really a hard problem to deal with.

[hahay]

this has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. Bitcoin is a virtual currency that is accessed on the internet which means global warming is caused by smoke pollution and tree felling. maybe subjecknya more precisely mining and global warming because mining has an effect on the effects of hot temperatures

Global warming is not only caused by smoke pollution and tree felling, we can admit to confirming that bitcoin transactions require mining so that the transactions we perform can work well, and in accessing the internet and mining we need and will use considerable electricity, the greater the electrical power we need will also make global warming that we don't realize. so there are many factors that make global warming continue to increase every day.

[vgk88]

I think that Bitcoin does not pose a really big threat to the environment. In our world there are many sources of pollution that pollute the environment much more than Bitcoin.

[ICOTechSupport]

I think the bitcoin can make some CSR or known as customer service relationship,
helping the nature by itself to recover from continuous destruction is a big thing not just for you but for the entire world

[BuyBuyBitcoin]

Bitcoin will save millions of tree's, once the paper stops being printed.

[PlusOne88]

There are so many reasons why global warming happens. Though bitcoin mining and other cryptocurrency may indeed have used up a lot of electricity in the process but I do think there are other big reasons why we could not just stop global warming so easily. In our environment carbon emissions are high, so may be their is something that has to be done to help resolve too much use of energy.  Their could be some other way around to help shorten the process of mining and some other means to make transactions easier but still safe. I think we need more studies on it. I haven't known much about the technology you have said but if their is any chance of allowing as to save electricity then maybe it could help the cryptocurrency economy. So maybe it is worth trying....

[Aldrinx00]

Sure bitcoin mining is one of the factor that cause global warming but it is not the main one, there are huge causes of it like gas emissions, smokes from burning garbage fields, smokes from cigarettes and many more. Also i think that they are thinking for an alternative solution for bitcoin mining like solar power and hydro powered electricity.

[GemmaJon]

The use of bitcoin electricity is several times higher than the amount of electricity consumed in the operations of the old financial system. Bitcoin consumes a large amount of electricity "exponentially." Banks say that if people do not continue to use "reliable" old payment gateways, switching to Bitcoin will deplete the world's power supply,

[zbig001]

Intermittency of "green" energy is a serious problem for grid operators, which must constantly balance supply and demand of energy.
Free market and sometimes negative prices of energy are very helpful, industrial plants can switch on excess heating or cooling processes, and earn money while balancing the grid.
But even better solution would be to mine cryptocurrency in periods when there is too much sun and wind in relation to the needs.
I believe that cryptocurrency mining can paradoxically contribute to the faster development of green energy.

[kesmex]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

no, bitcoin mining activity has little effect on global warming, compared to motor vehicle fumes, forest destruction and factory volumes, so bitcoin mining is not the main problem and not the cause of global warming.

[Quitthis]

I think our main problem is the huge electricity expense induced by mining and its noxious effect on the climate. This is, to my mind, the only serious argument against Bitcoin.
Alleviating the electricity expense should be one of our priorities. If we do not do it for the sake of the Earth (which we really should) we should at least do it selfishly because governments will not tolerate this forever and they will be right. The more the exchange rate increases, the worse it gets, of course.
Some solutions exist though: first there is proof-of-stake, of course. This technology may be too young to be deemed reliable enough but we should at least start considering it.
If we do not like proof-of-stake I think we could drammatically decrease the electricity expense by stopping monetary creation now. Nowdays Bitcoin is famous enough to remain secure even if miners earned transaction fees only. And if as a whole there are 16.5 M coins instead of 21 M, this does not make much of a difference. That is even good for holders. To make miners agree with that solution, they must be compensated for their lost income.  More precisely, active miners must be compensated because they have already bought ASICs. Futures miners do not need to be compensated. Since mining is a competitive industry, future miners will make no profit on average, whatever the reward scheme. To compensate active miners we could decide that the next 2016 blocks yield, say, 100 new coins and then 0 forever. Everybody would win and the Earth above all!
There are probably many other solutions and I wish the community cared a little more about this fundamental issue.

What about el.cars? How many toxic gases and waste they generate while producing batteries and don't forget they sale oil to make el.cars. And we all are almost forced ti buy them because they are green. Look there is a lot of things that polute the earth. And I don't think only crypto can help the earth

[Valer4ik]

There is a certain paradox. Prices are taken from exchanges, and many large exchanges are offline, roughly speaking from pocket to pocket. But the course is from the exchange. So the price is the same and there is no undervaluation? So it costs so much. Where to go in growth? Everyone is happy 🤔

[mornabo]

Bitcoin is nothing to do with global warming. Global warning is an increase of global temprature which causes climate change. The reason of it are when carbon dioxide, other air pollutants and greenhouse gases collect in the atmosphere and absorb sunlight and solar radiation that have bounced off the earth’s surface.

Your statement is too deep mate, of course bitcoin will not cause things like that, the current concern is, many people say that bitcoin is not good for the environment because bitcoin uses electricity resources, such as crypto mining that uses too much electricity? I think this won't be too dangerous for the environment, isnt it ?

[YOSHIE]

I assume that all people in the world are focused on excessive technology and electricity,
So for that if you say Bitcoin is one of the global warming up the world is wrong.
Example:
If Bitcoin isn't there, of course people also have to use an excessive internet system.
As:
- games, banks, telephone, television, nuclear, and many others.
For this reason, in my opinion Bitcoin is not one of the world's global heat sinkers.

[stigmacryptonight]

Bitcoin exploration is actually adding within the worldwide heating however because other people say actually banking institutions tend to be performing exactly the same perhaps once the period arrives which bitcoin changed the actual foreign currency fiat program after that it will likely be a suitable utilization of power as well as factor towards the worldwide heating.