Bitcoin and global warming

[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.