Development for Bitcoin to reduce CO2 footprint

[HeRetiK]

And as I said before you also point out its not a working payment system at the moment.

I'm not saying that Bitcoin is not a working payment system at the moment, because it is, despite it's scaling probles. I'm saying Bitcoin is not yet able to fully replace existing payment systems -- assuming you want to reduce Bitcoin to a mere payment system (ie. there's also the matter of store of value, financial sovereignty and maybe at one point a useful token / smart contract economy).

In the end it breaks to whether we deem 1) cryptocurrencies a worthy endeavour and 2) PoS and other PoW-free consensus algorithms viable security models.

Regarding the first point, reclaiming individual financial sovereignity and possibly replacing existing, more energy and especially labour intensive financial infrastructure seem worth it. Just imagine the amount of human resources one could free up by automating a large part of the financial industry. At least financial service workers will have a better chance at finding new jobs than most of the manual workers one can expect to be automated away in the coming decades.

Regarding the second point I have simply yet to see a consensus algorithm other than PoW work in practice. Crypto's history is full of failed PoS attempts and most other consensus algorithms are either permissioned or require trust.

That's just my 2 sats though.

I've heard that googling something requires the same ammount of heating water for tee 3 times.

average kettle is 1200watt/h = 20watt a minute
average gaming computer 600watt/h = 10watt a minute

if a kettle takes 1 minute to boil (depending on how much water your boiling) you would have to google for 6 minutes to match

Thanks for doing the math

I think people tend to underestimate the amount of energy required for water to reach boiling point.

[1715092275]

1715092275

[1715092275]

1715092275

[angel55]

We are still early in crypto's development and I am most interested in POS coins that won't require massive amounts of energy and hardware to stay secure.  Just because something hasn't gained traction yet doesn't mean we should stop trying.

[konfuzius5278]

And as I said before you also point out its not a working payment system at the moment.

I'm not saying that Bitcoin is not a working payment system at the moment, because it is, despite it's scaling probles. I'm saying Bitcoin is not yet able to fully replace existing payment systems -- assuming you want to reduce Bitcoin to a mere payment system (ie. there's also the matter of store of value, financial sovereignty and maybe at one point a useful token / smart contract economy).

In the end it breaks to whether we deem 1) cryptocurrencies a worthy endeavour and 2) PoS and other PoW-free consensus algorithms viable security models.

Regarding the first point, reclaiming individual financial sovereignity and possibly replacing existing, more energy and especially labour intensive financial infrastructure seem worth it. Just imagine the amount of human resources one could free up by automating a large part of the financial industry. At least financial service workers will have a better chance at finding new jobs than most of the manual workers one can expect to be automated away in the coming decades.

Regarding the second point I have simply yet to see a consensus algorithm other than PoW work in practice. Crypto's history is full of failed PoS attempts and most other consensus algorithms are either permissioned or require trust.

That's just my 2 sats though.

I've heard that googling something requires the same ammount of heating water for tee 3 times.

average kettle is 1200watt/h = 20watt a minute
average gaming computer 600watt/h = 10watt a minute

if a kettle takes 1 minute to boil (depending on how much water your boiling) you would have to google for 6 minutes to match

Thanks for doing the math

I think people tend to underestimate the amount of energy required for water to reach boiling point.

As payment system, as shown with my first link, BTC uses about 3x more energy then 100 thousend Visa TX:

For me personal I often said, DASH is the more useable payment system because it can send TX within secounds. But DASH still also POW

[franky1]

As payment system, as shown with my first link, BTC uses about 3x more energy then 100 thousend Visa TX:

VISA payments are not settled when you swipe your card. all that occurs is a balance checker (validate UTXO) and relay tx to a bank(network relay of unconfirmed to mempool).
the banks then SEPARETLY batch up the payments and handle the settlement later.(block hashing)
comparing visa to a bitcoin confirmed tx is wrong on so many levels

a visa payment/speed is comparable to just putting tx's into mempool, which costs are much lower than you insinuate it costs for bitcoin, but speeds are the same

also bitcoins confirmed tx cost are not high due to technology. but artificially manipulated to appear high by those trying to stifle bitcoin utility to advertise alternative networks as 'the solution'

also. whether a block is empty or contains 100,000 tx. the asic mining part is the exact same. asics do not handle transactions. they just hash a small piece of data. this small piece of data is the same length no matter how many transactions there are. so trying to insinuate asics costs relate directly to transaction cost, is you mis understanding the whole bitcoin process

[kryptqnick]

I know it has been discussed often with many hardliners on both sides about the energegy consumption of Bitcoin and its CO2 footprint.
For my opinion as crypto technical forward payment option we should not close the eyes to it when many people try to lower their CO2 footprint to do the same.
For my start i use the data of https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption to say that BTC needs minimum of 38 TWh up to 63 TWh a year with an annual footprint of 30216 kt CO2 (!!!) Everyone can expect what this means.

So my question is: Should DEV-team focus on a enviromental friendly main bitcoin fork? We have big knowlege in that team so we possible have a secure solution. Can be POS but need not to be.

I agree that CO2 print is very important, and if it were a way to reduce electricity consumption, it would be great. However, I don't think you are right that it's not possible to keep mining and yet become eco-friendly. Surely, there's some pollution from the alternatives we have today, but significantly reducing it is still a good idea. Moreover, it does not seem like our world is on the path of using less energy. In fact, I am pretty sure that the consumption will grow along with civilization. So searching for better sources of energy and learning to compensate the footprint by actions that can reduce it seems to be a more realistic way. Moreover, I don't think Bitcoin users are generally concerned enough about ecology to support the fork.

[HeRetiK]

One possible way to reduce emissions is to slow down the process by accumulating more transactions per block (the file where data is recorded). But this would reduce the very speed and efficiency that has made bitcoin so successful.

Not really.

Mining uses the same amount of energy regardless of there being 10 transactions or 10 million transactions per block. Miners spend as much on electricity as they can while still turning a profit. Accordingly the amount of money miners can spend on electricity mostly depends on the block reward, transaction fees and crypto-to-fiat exchange rate (other factors being infrastructure and hardware acquisition costs).

So one way to lessen the CO2 footprint of a PoW-based cryptocurrency is to shorten its currency emission timeframe, similar to Monero's. Making larger blocks unfortunately is not.

[CryptoBry]

Energy use, CO₂ footprint... those are issues for which you should not be ask the consumer to handle (you won't get useful results).
Why don't you ask Las Vegas stop wasting electricity? Why don't you convince USA or China stop the coal based industries? Bitcoin mining goes mostly of hidro and solar electricity. And this makes it much cleaner than some wants to make you believe. So back to the start. It's not an issue, so no solution is needed. At least not yet.

Yes, it should be clear for all to understand that all industries are consuming electricity even the religious organizations do. And of course, there are wastes in every industry and the big incentive why we have to continually look for more efficient technology (or mining equipment on this regard) is all about money or economy.

[Ryan Dugan]

It's all relative. Do you know how much energy we use for everyday living. In relation to the big picture mining uses hardly any electricity. I wonder how much a bank uses?
You say dams and windmills also pollute the environment? How?

Things that damage CO2 is stuff like coal mining and mass pollution and dumping deforestation. Mining doesn't do this. Worrying about mining leaving a large CO2 footprint like worrying that the cherry on your cupcake meanwhile the whole cupcake looks and taste horrible.

[konfuzius5278]

It's all relative. Do you know how much energy we use for everyday living. In relation to the big picture mining uses hardly any electricity. I wonder how much a bank uses?
You say dams and windmills also pollute the environment? How?

People dont understand. BItcoin is until now not little part of banks. I dont like them but Bitcoin until now dont give credit, dont sell company shares, even not work as payment system. Its only a investment

Pollution of those things is easy: Come to germany and see that windmills are even build in forest, where 100.000 square meters each windmill trees are taken down.
And that damns change the whole landscape is also known

[Kakmakr]

I think the introduction of the Lightning Network and the removal of millions of micro transactions to a off-chain solution has already contributed to a massive reduction in the amount of transactions that had to be done on-chain, so that is a solution on it's own. 

Governments could even tax large mining farms with additional CO2 taxes to create special income for them to help fight the CO2 pollution, like they did with the CO2 taxes on new cars. <This money could be used to fund more environmental friendly energy solutions to generate "clean" power to be used for mining> 

[squatter]

I think the introduction of the Lightning Network and the removal of millions of micro transactions to a off-chain solution has already contributed to a massive reduction in the amount of transactions that had to be done on-chain, so that is a solution on it's own. 

That doesn't really address energy consumption. The advent of LN isn't taking miners off the network. On the contrary, hash rate keeps increasing and is near the all-time high.

There are two big issues I see. One is whether mining operations are drawing on excess capacity or not -- how much net increase in electricity generation are they causing vs. load balancing? The other is the trajectory of green energy usage in the coming decades and what percentage of Bitcoin mining will shift away from things like coal-fired energy.

[bitbunnny]

I'm not sure if there are exact figures how much energy is spent on Bitcoin. Probably with bigger adoption energy consumption will grow further but maybe some alternative energy sources could be the answer to that.
The biggest problem for CO2 are huge mining farms but for them there could be defined some additional taxes or something, like is already done in some other industries, and funds from that should be invested further in environment protection. I think that no one wants that Bitcoin becomes another problem for our planet.

[franky1]

I think the introduction of the Lightning Network and the removal of millions of micro transactions to a off-chain solution has already contributed to a massive reduction in the amount of transactions that had to be done on-chain, so that is a solution on it's own. 

a legendary user that doesnt even know that hashing is unrelated to transactions .. dang

Governments could even tax large mining farms with additional CO2 taxes to create special income for them to help fight the CO2 pollution, like they did with the CO2 taxes on new cars. <This money could be used to fund more environmental friendly energy solutions to generate "clean" power to be used for mining> 

energy is already 'taxed' at different rates/additional CO₂.. its why coal energy production is more expensive per kw than hydro.(research carbon credits)
power companies already do deals for farms to buy up power in contracted allotments of power long term. this isnt the standard domestic/residential 'consumption' but the excess that would go to waste. thus its literally 'free money' for the power plants. which they love and can use to expand operations

[Nadziratel]

Some standart argues for POW hardliners I like to say something in the beginning:
1) We can use green power for mining
Green power is an illusion. Even windmills or dams pollute the enviroment


Maybe I forget somethink. But again I think we should wake up and do somethink. Whats your opinion.

Green energy and renewable energy is a process that we must achieve. However, development is still underway in this area. Useful results may emerge in the near future, but we are not ready yet.

[Adriano2010]

Maybe we will need new miners who have more power for mining and reduced energy needed to work. Also maybe we need solar energy where is possible for mining and this can help on long term to reduce CO2 emissions.

[davis196]

We will have new hardware for more easy mining
Ok. And the old ones are trash? Even bad for enviroment. And this will continue

I wouldn't say that it's bad for the environment,because most of the mining hardware can be recycled.
Anyway,the CO2 blueprint of crypto mining will be reduced only by implementing green energy technologies,any change in the core concepts of bitcoin might ruin it.

[HeRetiK]

Maybe we will need new miners who have more power for mining and reduced energy needed to work. [...]

More efficient miners only lead to an increase in hashrate, not to a decrease in power consumption. That is, if for example the cost of running mining hardware just got cut in half, a mining operation will simply double their hardware in an attempt to double their profits.

[franky1]

More efficient miners only lead to an increase in hashrate, not to a decrease in power consumption. That is, if for example the cost of running mining hardware just got cut in half, a mining operation will simply double their hardware in an attempt to double their profits.

not exactly true.
october 2018 proved the opposite of your assumptions.

in 2018. new S15 came out and replaced S9.
for every 2 rigs of S9 decommissioned. it only required one s15 to replace it.
what actually occured was in october they removed 3 s9 for every 1 s15. thus the hashrate went down.
which is part of why the november 2018 price went down because pools could mine btc using less electric. thus make more profit.

yep less electric, less metal. more profit.

i know what you were thinking though. even i back in august/september was expecting hashrate to ramp up at the release of the s15's. but it just goes to show that different strategies can be implemented and pools still make profit

[konfuzius5278]

Additional point is in this CO2 consumtion on HASH rate, even the I dont know how much Bitcoin Full node are not included.

And thats one of the main points to understand. With the right consensus algo you can running coin with only this full nodes.

[prehisto]

Some standart argues for POW hardliners I like to say something in the beginning:
1) We can use green power for mining
Green power is an illusion. Even windmills or dams pollute the enviroment

NO!

There is no CO2 pollution from wind, hydro ,geothermal ,solar, tidal and even nuclear reactors. Do you research before posting such BS.

The only way to reduce BTC's CO2 pollution is by using green energy sources

If you are referring to CO2  " cost" to manufacture the equipment , it is very small compared to energy these sources are giving , thus there is no point of pointing out.