Should Bitcoin lower its carbon footprint?

[BigBoom3599]

It is 2019, there are climate protests nearly every day all around the world. Meanwhile bitcoin is consuming more energy than a small country

In my opinion the bitcoin network needs to take responsibility and change so that it has a smaller footprint, it just isn't responsible to burn such a large amount of energy for such little utility. I honestly felt a little ashamed when I read that for a single transaction Bitcoin uses the amount of energy that could power an US home for 22 days! ^[1] This number will only be going up as the price rises.

Yes, I know this energy is securing the network, which is of course very important.
But shouldn't we try to find a way to minimize this energy consumption. Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.


[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

[1715205268]

1715205268

[1715205268]

1715205268

[1715205268]

1715205268

[1715205268]

1715205268

[odolvlobo]

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.

The problem is that energy is generated by burning carbon. The problem is not how the energy is used. If you want to stop carbon emission, or at least slow it down, stop burning carbon.

[Lance203sin]

Bitcoin carbon effect is overhyped. Its not so much in % in the world. But PoS is much more eco friendly, yes

[kryptqnick]

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.

The problem is that energy is generated by burning carbon. The problem is not how the energy is used. If you want to stop carbon emission, or at least slow it down, stop burning carbon.

I support this view. I am sensitive to ecological topics and very sympathetic towards Greta. However, I believe that reducing consumption is not always the answer. When it comes to something that exploits the resources of the planet or maker is a place full of garbage, reducing is the way to go. I try to use minimum plastic and recycle the materials that can be recycled, although we don't really have a smooth system of recycling trash like people in developed countries can enjoy. When it comes to electricity, it's not something necessarily requiring valuable unrenewable resources or something. Moreover, it also allows humanity to progress as a civilization, contrary to plastic bags or cows. So we should definitely be looking for clean(er) energy rather than reducing consumption (although for now, it's not bad to use less of it when we don't really need it).

[ChrisPop]

The world is slowly moving towards alternative energy sources. Hydro, termal, solar, wind, etc. are all natural regenerable sources of energy and as far as I know there are some farms in Iceland powered by such sources. Of course that a lot more are powered by solar in the world so I think we're not looking at this "problem" from the right angle. Electricity is not a scarce resource on this Earth and is between the few ones which we can practically generate for infinity. Everything around us is ENERGY!

[Icygreen]

I suppose it depends on how the electric is generated.    Bitcoin does something unique with energy that legacy finance and even gold failed at.
It makes a public and accurate transfer of value based on electricity/energy. Laws of thermodynamics say energy is neither created nor destroyed but transformed.  Bitcoin is in essence a numerical and secure account of energy.  

By comparison, the energy that goes into making banks, vaults, armored vehicles, security systems, personnel, and not to forget the wars and poverty legacy finance enables, it becomes clear that Bitcoin is a superior choice!

Edit: I've heard it estimated that BTC energy consumption worldwide is about the same amount as USA Christmas light decorations.

 

[Kyraishi]

Not sure if I believe the statistics here to be honest, not really sure if bitcoin transactions take up that much electricity, seems quite a bit exaggerated to be honest.

Also, it's not just BTC. A lot of the world produces energy via the burning of fossil fuels, which is easy and fairly cheap to do, but of course, is impactful to the enviroment.

The first step here is for the big companies to stop with their huge carbon footprints, and need to swap to renewable energy sources like wind (windmills), or water (Hydroelectric) - and this technology needs to be applied towards bitcoin mining.

[BigBoom3599]

Not sure if I believe the statistics here to be honest, not really sure if bitcoin transactions take up that much electricity, seems quite a bit exaggerated to be honest.

I'll do the napkin math for you.

Every day 144 blocks are mined, every block rewards the miner 12.5 + 0.1555 BTC. So every day 1822,392 BTC (= $16,4 million) is given to miners (on average). If you assume for every BTC a miner mines he pays 0.5 BTC in electricity (not sure how accurate this is, just estimating) than that would mean $8,2 million spent on electricity daily. If we assume an electricity cost of $0.06/kWh that comes down to 273.3 136.6 million kWh daily. If we consider 300,000 txs per day we get roughly 910 455 kWh per tx. Which is what the average US household consumes per month 15 days . So that's even worse than what the original post said.


Again this is really rough napkin math, if you want more accurate estimations, go to the link I put in the OP, it is way more accurate :p

EDIT: Thanks Mike Mayor for correcting my math  

[Theb]

Yes, I know this energy is securing the network, which is of course very important.
But shouldn't we try to find a way to minimize this energy consumption. Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.

I think you are in the right track, instead of focusing on how much energy is consumed for mining, and creating transaction we need to focus more on the alternative ways we can generate electricity to operate the bitcoin network. The critics are really the ones targeting Bitcoin's energy consumption as an issue on why isn't it an idea currency or how can it destroy our environment yet they failed to point out that there are far more worst contributors to pollution and power consumption, they also fail to point out that the problem of Bitcoin can be solved when they shift to alternative modes on generating electricity. You shouldn't feel bad on how Bitcoin is consuming electricity because it's what the critics want you to believe and they are just messing with your head.

[dothebeats]

Bitcoin is not directly responsible for the carbon emissions the miners produce. Those who own farms can always opt to hash with cleaner and greener energy, but if they are getting good deals from their local power company then so be it (I believe it's way less than the average household rate that power companies charge regularly, but that differs depending on where you're at). That's why you see some farms migrate to Iceland, the provinces of China and other areas where renewables are readily available and cheap to harness, much cheaper than having a marked-down contract from your local power company.

The problem is that energy is generated by burning carbon. The problem is not how the energy is used. If you want to stop carbon emission, or at least slow it down, stop burning carbon.

Easier said than done, especially if the governments and power companies are conniving with each other the continuous use of fossil fuels rather than allowing nuclear and other cleaner and greener types of energy to flourish.

[squatter]

It is 2019, there are climate protests nearly every day all around the world. Meanwhile bitcoin is consuming more energy than a small country

Two things to keep in mind:

First, consider that Bitcoin mining largely runs on clean/renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydropower:

CoinShares says bitcoin network gets 74.1 percent of its electricity from renewables, making it “more renewables-driven than almost every other large-scale industry in the world.”

Second, power stations always generate electricity beyond real demand to maintain grid reliability. Industrial Bitcoin miners can and do make load balancing agreements with power generators to consume already-generated electricity at discounted prices. A non-zero portion of the hash rate is not increasing net electricity consumption.

[pixie85]

If we put it this way we'll always come up with a huge number.

You say Bitcoin is using as much energy as a small country.
I say Television sets all around the world are using more power than a big country. Do we really need TVs to live?
A world banking system uses a lot more. Remove all the banks and leave just server rooms and two way ATMs and the power consumption will decrease.

Bitcoin is not a problem here.

[figmentofmyass]

In my opinion the bitcoin network needs to take responsibility and change so that it has a smaller footprint, it just isn't responsible to burn such a large amount of energy for such little utility.

what do you think the legacy banking system runs on, magical fairy dust? no, it runs on massive amounts of energy. same with gold mining, coin minting, etc. that's the correct lens to view bitcoin mining through.

this is fundamentally a human problem, not a bitcoin problem. if humans didn't need money, we wouldn't need dollars, gold, or bitcoin.

until that problem is solved, the best we can do is steer energy consumption towards sustainable sources.

[darkangel11]

I honestly don't see a reason for that to happen. The more important question I'd like to ask all climate defenders is:
Would that energy be produced anyway if Bitcoin miners weren't paying for it or not. To my knowledge a power plant is usually making excess energy that doesn't go anywhere because it's difficult to run generators on 20%. When you start a A 100 MW generator it will run full steam producing 100 MW +/- 10% and all you can do is switch it on and off. Does it make a difference for that generator that some miner turned on a room full of miners that uses 1MW? For us mere mortals it's a big farm. For a power company it's only a blip on the screen that they have to bill.
Chill people.

[hatshepsut93]

Yes, I know this energy is securing the network, which is of course very important.
But shouldn't we try to find a way to minimize this energy consumption. Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

Proof of Stake doesn't work, it's not secure and no one managed to fixed it, despite many attempts. Same for all other alternative consensus algorithms. If someone will present a new algorithm and prove its security and it will be as good as PoW, then it could be adopted by Bitcoin. But it might never happen.

I personally don't care about Bitcoin's footprint, it's way smaller than many useless activities out there.

[blckhawk]

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.

The problem with solar is it works with batteries. And creation of batteries is much more harmful to the environment. Every way we have known so far have adverse effects to environment, with some exceptions such as wind power and hydroelectric power, which is good but also affects environment (such as dams for hydroelectric that bring imbalance to the ecosystem). What I think we should focus at is how to recycle the materials used to lessen environment effects.

[Herbert2020]

bitcoin is not a person to produce pollution, it is not a machine to burn fuel and produce pollution either. bitcoin is just zeros and ones on your computer which is then connected to the "grid" which is then goes to an electric company and that company is burning fuel and producing pollution.
so in other words your quarrel is not with bitcoin, it is with that company and if you want to reduce the carbon footprint you have to go to the electric companies and petition them to start polluting the environment less.

[adaseb]

Bitcoin mining doesn't have a large carbon footprint as some other industries. Did you know that by eating burgers you are increasing the carbon footprint due to cows?

What about NASCAR or Indy or other car racing where the cars don't go from A to B but instead from A to A and basically waste all that gas going nowhere.

What about all these people in America driving huge SUVs and trucks just with 1 or 2 passengers? Could easily have an economy car that is more fuel efficient.

These are some of the examples but there are tons more I can think of. Bitcoins carbon footprint is very small and for the security is needed to keep the network decentralized.

[Eclipse26]

As technology continuos to develop, we're becoming more dependent on it. And every technology requires electricity to run. Imagine the population here on earth and almost everyone is using electricity. To be honest, bitcoin only shares a low percentage to it. Yes, it consumes energy but try looking at other businesses who consume energy as well. Also, they're trying to look for an alternative to lessen electricity consumption.

I really believe that almost everything we do on earth to survive has a negative consequence on the environment. The environment is providing everything to help us survive but in exchange, the earth is slowly collapsing.  That's the reality

[Kakmakr]

https://coincenter.org/entry/five-myths-about-bitcoin-s-energy-use  <---- There are a lot of fud being spread about Bitcoin's electricity use and how big it's carbon footprint is.

The reality is that Bitcoin mining is using a lot of electricity that are generated from environment friendly sources. A lot of mining are done with Hydroelectricity and electricity that are produced from wind power or wind energy.

Do not believe everything you read in the mass media, because a lot of that can be debunked and has been debunked in the past. 

[Wind_FURY]

Yes, I know this energy is securing the network, which is of course very important.
But shouldn't we try to find a way to minimize this energy consumption. Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

Understand the incentives of what makes everything stick together in Bitcoin. Once you do, you will never ever consider POS as an alternative.

Plus trolls would say POW is wasteful, its role in Bitcoin is actually THE breakthrough.

[Casdinyard]

Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

No, better yet leave bitcoin the way it is. Isn't getting incentives is more profitable than what you could get in staking?

and hydroelectric power, which is good but also affects environment (such as dams for hydroelectric that bring imbalance to the ecosystem).

Not just imbalance but being harmful as it can cause flooding that could kill wildlife and humans. Just like what happened in Sichuan,China wherein they have over 6,600 dams and unfortunately some of the dams had collapsed and flooded villages and displaced millions of lives.

[sehoon]

I think we should focus on renewable energy instead of burning something in order to produce electricity. Instead of coal power plants or fossil fuel powerplants, use hydro, and windmill powerplant. But if the higher people are such greedy people, we can lessen it by lessening the mining of bitcoin.

[BigBoom3599]

what do you think the legacy banking system runs on, magical fairy dust? no, it runs on massive amounts of energy. same with gold mining, coin minting, etc. that's the correct lens to view bitcoin mining through.

I know the banking systems use massive amounts of energy, however they process millions of transactions per second. So they provide more utility per energy unit.
(this is subjective, and probably controversial on a bitcoin forum  )

Gold mining is a good point, hadn't thought about that. It is very comparable to bitcoin mining in terms of energy usage. Thanks for bringing that up!

I honestly don't see a reason for that to happen. The more important question I'd like to ask all climate defenders is:
Would that energy be produced anyway if Bitcoin miners weren't paying for it or not. To my knowledge a power plant is usually making excess energy that doesn't go anywhere because it's difficult to run generators on 20%. When you start a A 100 MW generator it will run full steam producing 100 MW +/- 10% and all you can do is switch it on and off. Does it make a difference for that generator that some miner turned on a room full of miners that uses 1MW? For us mere mortals it's a big farm. For a power company it's only a blip on the screen that they have to bill.
Chill people.

Eh, I'm not really convinced TBH. If electricity producers see that more power is being used, they will produce more. It is as simple as that. Of course there will always have a buffer of electricity that no one is using, but that buffer needs to be there. It has purpose. So if miners use up that buffer, electricity producers will start producing more to maintain that buffer.


To all the people saying we should move to green power. I agree, and I also agree that we can't do much about it, that is up to the electricity companies and not our responsibility.

[SummerBliss]

We can't do anything in that.
Decentralization or Conservation. Only one is possible at once.
Due to the decentralization in Bitcoin mining, anyone can mine. When anyone can mine, the person with higher GPU power will get the mining rewards. This competition leads to increased usage of computing power. Hence, the competition will continue until miners will reach the break-even point between rewards and cost. No one cares about environment.

[fuguebtc]

It is 2019, there are climate protests nearly every day all around the world. Meanwhile bitcoin is consuming more energy than a small country

In my opinion the bitcoin network needs to take responsibility and change so that it has a smaller footprint, it just isn't responsible to burn such a large amount of energy for such little utility. I honestly felt a little ashamed when I read that for a single transaction Bitcoin uses the amount of energy that could power an US home for 22 days! ^[1] This number will only be going up as the price rises.

Yes, I know this energy is securing the network, which is of course very important.
But shouldn't we try to find a way to minimize this energy consumption. Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.


[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Its known for many years that PoW is responsible for securing the BTC blockchain at cost of too much energy consumption. Point is can we replace PoW in BTC with some echo friendly consensus algorithm like PoS or DPoS etc ? I dont think its possible now. 

[kaya11]

It is 2019, there are climate protests nearly every day all around the world. Meanwhile bitcoin is consuming more energy than a small country

In my opinion the bitcoin network needs to take responsibility and change so that it has a smaller footprint, it just isn't responsible to burn such a large amount of energy for such little utility. I honestly felt a little ashamed when I read that for a single transaction Bitcoin uses the amount of energy that could power an US home for 22 days! ^[1] This number will only be going up as the price rises.

Yes, I know this energy is securing the network, which is of course very important.
But shouldn't we try to find a way to minimize this energy consumption. Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.


[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

As you have said there are also other energy sources that could power up the bitcoin network. And for sure there are scientist out there that is doing the very best to solve similar problems in energy sources. I am also hoping and imagining things on how we could accumulate energy that could last up for centuries and not destroying any part of the world using it.

[Asmonist]

Its not really that bitcoin is the culprit of it. We are in a digital world now. Everyone is just so dependent with internet. And this interner really consume that energy. However, most likely all businesses are dependent with internet connection. It gives the fastest communication media around the world. So definitely, bitcoin is just part of it but you can't say its the bitcoin that exhaust it.

[seoincorporation]

It is 2019, there are climate protests nearly every day all around the world. Meanwhile bitcoin is consuming more energy than a small country

In my opinion the bitcoin network needs to take responsibility and change so that it has a smaller footprint, it just isn't responsible to burn such a large amount of energy for such little utility. I honestly felt a little ashamed when I read that for a single transaction Bitcoin uses the amount of energy that could power an US home for 22 days! ^[1] This number will only be going up as the price rises.

Yes, I know this energy is securing the network, which is of course very important.
But shouldn't we try to find a way to minimize this energy consumption. Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.


[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

If a single transaction cost to the world the same amount of energy that could power a home for 22 days, then we are doing something terribly wrong. And the solution is just as ethereum did it, change from PoW to PoS, that way holders would mine the coins and not those miners.

If btc moves to PoS we would reduce the carbon pootprint in a exponential manner.

[southafricadude]

Bitcoin miners are going more and more towards better more efficient hardware and "green" energy such as hydro / solar / wind etc.
The problem is not bitcoin, the problem is all the rest of the people. What should happen is every normal person should lower their carbon footprint...that would help more than if there was zero bitcoin carbon footprint.

[Wintersoldier]

Bitcoin miners are going more and more towards better more efficient hardware and "green" energy such as hydro / solar / wind etc.
The problem is not bitcoin, the problem is all the rest of the people. What should happen is every normal person should lower their carbon footprint...that would help more than if there was zero bitcoin carbon footprint.

What if there is a law that needs to be passed for miners to return something to the environment, like for every bitcoin that they can mine, they need to plant 100 three. That 100 three is so easy for the market value of 1BTC in return to them. Since they are consuming lots of natural resources in return for digital technology that is also helpful, we need something to balance the condition, and for me, that is through planting trees.

[Mike Mayor]

Not sure if I believe the statistics here to be honest, not really sure if bitcoin transactions take up that much electricity, seems quite a bit exaggerated to be honest.

I'll do the napkin math for you.

Every day 144 blocks are mined, every block rewards the miner 12.5 + 0.1555 BTC. So every day 1822,392 BTC (= $16,4 million) is given to miners (on average). If you assume for every BTC a miner mines he pays 0.5 BTC in electricity (not sure how accurate this is, just estimating) than that would mean $8,2 million spent on electricity daily. If we assume an electricity cost of $0.06/kWh that comes down to 273,3 million kWh daily. If we consider 300,000 txs per day we get roughly 910 kWh per tx. Which is what the average US household consumes per month. So that's even worse than what the original post said.


Again this is really rough napkin math, if you want more accurate estimations, go to the link I put in the OP, it is way more accurate :p

It is not as much as that your maths seems wrong to me (unless I am wrong then forgive me) 8.2 million is = 820million cents. 1 kWh is 0.06, therefore, 820/6= 136.66million kw per day Somewhere you doubled up. But still, that is a crap load I didn't realize it was so much damn.

[Lucius]

BigBoom3599 & all others who think Bitcoin mining is destroying the planet Earth please read the following posts carefully and with understanding!

It's not 1%.

The report (which was released months ago) is available here: https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=8A1CECD1-157C-45D4-A1AB-B894E913737D

Their method for calculating energy consumption was to assume everyone is mining using an Antminer S9, which will use 98 watts per terahash. Current hash rate is 60,000,000 TH/s, meaning a global consumption of 5.88 gigawatts. That converts to 51.5 TWh per year.

According to https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf, global electricity production is 24,255 TWh per year. 51.5 is around 0.2% of 24,255.

This is not even taking in to account that the majority of mining uses renewable energy.

0.2% (which I showed in my post above is a more accurate number than the 1% this report suggests) is such a tiny fraction compared to other uses of electricity. Not even in terms of major things like infrastructure or corporations, but in every day household use.

Bitcoin uses approximately 51.5 TWh per year. According to this report (https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/settopboxes.pdf), cable boxes in the US alone use 3 GW just being in standby, which works out to 26 TWh per year, or about half of the bitcoin network's power demands. This doesn't even include the TVs they are connected to, or the associated sound systems, or DVD players, or games consoles, or everything else that sits there in standby for 16 hours a day. And this in the US only, never mind globally.

Now think how many lights are left on which aren't needed, or computers turned on which aren't actively being used, or computers in sleep or standby modes, or TVs which are on but not being watched, or consoles on which aren't being played, etc. Not just in the US, but globally. Even just wasted household electricity absolutely dwarfs the electricity consumption of the bitcoin network.

So roughly 0.2% of the total generated electricity is used on Bitcoin mining, and more then 50% of that comes from renewable energy sources. By what is o_e_l_e_o posted only cable boxes, TVs, DVD players, and other devices in standby mode consume more energy in one year than all bitcoin mining. And this is only in USA, what about rest of the world?

[hulla]

It is 2019, there are climate protests nearly every day all around the world. Meanwhile bitcoin is consuming more energy than a small country

In my opinion the bitcoin network needs to take responsibility and change so that it has a smaller footprint, it just isn't responsible to burn such a large amount of energy for such little utility. I honestly felt a little ashamed when I read that for a single transaction Bitcoin uses the amount of energy that could power an US home for 22 days! ^[1] This number will only be going up as the price rises.

Yes, I know this energy is securing the network, which is of course very important.
But shouldn't we try to find a way to minimize this energy consumption. Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.


[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Your calculation about bitcoin electricity consumption was correct but if you also check out the amount of energy consumption used by the central bank printing press in printing money the energy used in a year is more than the amount of energy used to mine bitcoin in a year.
With that being said, a lot of solution about mining energy consumption have been created and i think the problem now if the financial status of each miners in using the alternative facilities.

[Zionatin]

In my opinion the bitcoin network needs to take responsibility and change so that it has a smaller footprint, it just isn't responsible to burn such a large amount of energy for such little utility.

what do you think the legacy banking system runs on, magical fairy dust? no, it runs on massive amounts of energy. same with gold mining, coin minting, etc. that's the correct lens to view bitcoin mining through.

this is fundamentally a human problem, not a bitcoin problem. if humans didn't need money, we wouldn't need dollars, gold, or bitcoin.

until that problem is solved, the best we can do is steer energy consumption towards sustainable sources.

It is all in perspective. You cannot really compare things like the way that user is trying to. I am not sure how many kw the bank users everyday but I am sure it is a lot.
The internet apparently uses 70billion kw per year https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/06/28/how-much-electricity-does-it-take-to-run-the-internet/#3490838f1fff
Bitcoin users 5million+/hour so it is 45 billion a year

So basically 60% of the power it takes to run the internet is the same as it takes to mine bitcoin.

100 million TH in the bitcoin network and a Richsun Bitmain Antminer S17-56TH/s that users 2500w on full load at 56TH
So that is 2 million miners x 2.5kw= 5million/hour

Quite crazy. I wonder how the bank compares.

[Duzter]

Mining is consuming more power. Every year something is getting advanced and whenever something is advanced the better efficiency from the machine is achieved lowering the electricity consumption. In one of the quote its been clearly mentioned bitcoin isn't mined with the power generated out of burning coal to emit carbon. So, there needs to be some development to make things more eco friendlier which can make everything good around the environment.

[figmentofmyass]

So roughly 0.2% of the total generated electricity is used on Bitcoin mining, and more then 50% of that comes from renewable energy sources. By what is o_e_l_e_o posted only cable boxes, TVs, DVD players, and other devices in standby mode consume more energy in one year than all bitcoin mining. And this is only in USA, what about rest of the world?

that's a good point, but we shouldn't only be considering current consumption. bitcoin's electricity consumption may significantly increase over time---and it definitely will if the price keeps increasing. televisions and DVD players have already completely penetrated society, so their associated electricity consumption is already near the upper bounds.

in another 10-20 years, i doubt we'll be comparing bitcoin to christmas lights or cable boxes. the question then becomes, what is an unreasonable amount of consumption? we shouldn't be content to say, "it's still small right now, let's not worry about it".

and i don't mean to fearmonger. i just don't see any useful extrapolations into the future, and i think that's necessary for any honest discussion of this issue. i don't want people to get the impression that bitcoin will always use less electricity than television devices in standby. that's definitely not true.

[Carlton Banks]

I read that for a single transaction Bitcoin uses the amount of energy that could power an US home for 22 days!

that's incorrect

Transactions aren't related to the amount of energy used to mine, if that was true then:

Code:

More mining = More transactions

...which is 100% wrong

energy used in mining only finds the next block. It's trivial to demonstrate this; every once in a while, a block is found with 0 transactions processed in it. That block is subject to the same threshold requirement as all the blocks before and after it (during the ~ 2 week window where the difficulty of finding a new block is static).


I would suggest actually reading more than 1 article about bitcoin mining before you venture strong opinions on the subject publicly, as you've ended up repeating a whole string of statements that are factually wrong, not just this one

[Lucius]

~snip~

Current consumption is something that is the result of the first 10 years of Bitcoin, so although it is impossible to predict how much electricity will be needed on an annual basis after another 10 years, can we say that consumption will reach about 1% of total world consumption? Whether it is a lot or a little depends on how you look at it, and who makes the judgments about it. Some already blame Bitcoin mining for global warming and pumping numbers trying to portray Bitcoin in a negative light.

I may be wrong, but a good part of the world still lives pretty much isolated on technology today (no Internet, TVs, washing machine, microwave...) and I am sure that in the future they will contribute to even greater consumption of electricity. The fact is that all electrical devices in the world consume double-digit more electricity in standby mode than it is spent on mining in one year. Added to this is the fact that the largest mining farms are located near hydroelectric power plants, and that the electricity they use is largely surplus.

[BigBoom3599]

that's incorrect

Transactions aren't related to the amount of energy used to mine, if that was true then:

Code:

More mining = More transactions

...which is 100% wrong

energy used in mining only finds the next block. It's trivial to demonstrate this; every once in a while, a block is found with 0 transactions processed in it. That block is subject to the same threshold requirement as all the blocks before and after it (during the ~ 2 week window where the difficulty of finding a new block is static).


I would suggest actually reading more than 1 article about bitcoin mining before you venture strong opinions on the subject publicly, as you've ended up repeating a whole string of statements that are factually wrong, not just this one

Fair point, putting the energy consumption in function of amount of transactions may not be completely correct. However it does give a good perspective on how massive the consumption actually is, it gives the number meaning.

If you want a more correct number, here it is: The Bitcoin network uses an estimated 73 TWh per year while only verifying 100 million transactions.

I know full well that more mining != more transactions. Instead of attacking my knowledge on Bitcoin (which is more than 1 article) please provide your opinion on this issue and contribute to the discussion. Thanks

[Carlton Banks]

Fair point, putting the energy consumption in function of amount of transactions may not be completely correct.

wrong again, it's not correct in any way shape or form

However it does give a good perspective on how massive the consumption actually is, it gives the number meaning.

no it doesn't

If you want a more correct number, here it is: The Bitcoin network uses an estimated 73 TWh per year while only verifying 100 million transactions.

Which part of "those 2 things have no relationship to each other" do you not understand

I know full well that more mining != more transactions.

but clearly you don't get it, because you'd stop saying they're related to each other if you did

[bitbunnny]

I support every effort to protect environment, no matt how snall it might seem. I'm aware that Bitcoin mining and Bitcoin transactions are energy consumers and thus also producers of polution for our planet. But we also contribute to that by sending emails, using banking transaction and similar so it's really hard to find the balance. between progress and ecology. Though U think it's not impossibe, there must be a solution but I'm not sure that Bitcoin users or miners are the right address to start with.

[figmentofmyass]

I may be wrong, but a good part of the world still lives pretty much isolated on technology today (no Internet, TVs, washing machine, microwave...) and I am sure that in the future they will contribute to even greater consumption of electricity. The fact is that all electrical devices in the world consume double-digit more electricity in standby mode than it is spent on mining in one year.

the hash rate has roughly doubled since that comparison was made 5 months ago. i'm not sure you're accounting for this level of growing mining expenditure.

Added to this is the fact that the largest mining farms are located near hydroelectric power plants, and that the electricity they use is largely surplus.

that's only true during the wet season.

just playing devil's advocate.....

[o_e_l_e_o]

just playing devil's advocate.....

You raise good points which need to be considered.

On the plus side, mining is become more energy efficient with time, and will likely continue to do so, so a doubling in hashrate does not equate to a doubling in energy requirements. For illustration, an Antminer S1 will give you 180 GH/s for 360 watts, so 180 GH per 360 joules, or 0.5 GH/joule. An Antminer S17 will give you 50 TH/s for 2,100 watts, so 50,000 GH per 2,100 joules, or 23.8 GH/joule. So the most recent Antminers are almost 50x more efficient than the older models. Obviously there is a very heterogenous set of mining equipment which is currently active, but a doubling in hashrate likely represents a far smaller increase in energy demands.

Also on the plus side are the reports which suggest a large proportion of bitcoin mining uses renewable energy, which again, is likely only to increase. Mining is driven by profits, and long-term renewable energy is far cheaper than continuing to use coal or other non-renewables. If the world eventually transitions to 100% renewable energy by the year 2050 or whatever the most recent targets are, then the energy consumption of the bitcoin network becomes almost irrelevant. It doesn't matter if it uses 10% of global electricity if electricity production is essentially unlimited (until the sun burns out).

[btctaipei]

It comes down to proposing an BIP that changes BTC proof of work (PoW) algorithm away from sha256. For this to work and to maintain network stability you can either make it computationally expansive or memory expansive or bandwidth expensive. There are alternative known as proof of stake, but its indirect effect incentive for securing the BTC transaction network cannot be underestimated. PoW shouldn't be that easy, because if its so then its no W)ork.

[BigBoom3599]

Which part of "those 2 things have no relationship to each other" do you not understand


but clearly you don't get it, because you'd stop saying they're related to each other if you did

I'm not trying to imply there is a relationship between them. I am just saying that the bitcoin network uses a lot of energy. And I'm also saying the bitcoin network doesn't verify many transactions. I am well aware that the energy consumption can 10x or 0.1x any time without the tx count changing. The relationship between them (or it's non-existence for that matter) doesn't matter to me.

Again, please, instead of saying I am wrong, add your opinion. Or add the right facts, to correct my wrong ones. I'm sure you have a interesting opinion on this subject, you have been around this space for a long time.

[Carlton Banks]

I am just saying that the bitcoin network uses a lot of energy.

1. That's not your energy, someone else paid for it.
2. It's already been demonstrated on this page that it doesn't use much energy (inane comparisons like "as much as Luxemburg" notwithstanding)
3. If you want to tell people to stop using energy, maybe target something destructive that uses far more energy than Bitcoin i.e. the military
4. It's also been demonstrated that Bitcoin uses a high amount of renewable energy, you just seem to have moved the goalposts and now just want to tell people what to do with their own stuff


also, I suspect you don't know what the energy in Bitcoin mining is used for

[BigBoom3599]

1. That's not your energy, someone else paid for it.

I didn't pay for the earth either, that doesn't mean I don't care about it. And that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to discuss it.

2. It's already been demonstrated on this page that it doesn't use much energy (inane comparisons like "as much as Luxemburg" notwithstanding)

Fair enough, in my opinion it still uses too much energy for the utility it provides, but that's just my opinion.

3. If you want to tell people to stop using energy, maybe target something destructive that uses far more energy than Bitcoin i.e. the military

Sure, I don't agree with their energy consumption either

4. It's also been demonstrated that Bitcoin uses a high amount of renewable energy, you just seem to have moved the goalposts and now just want to tell people what to do with their own stuff

I'm not telling people to do anything, just opening discussion about this issue. I'm very glad that it is using large amounts of renewable energy. I even mentioned that in my OP as a possible solution.

also, I suspect you don't know what the energy in Bitcoin mining is used for

It is used to generate hashes until a hash with a sufficient difficulty is found. But I'm sure you can find a better, more technical correction of my basic explanation. Thanks for adding to the discussion, I do appreciate it.

[airdnasxela]

The idea of electricity consumed by bitcoin mining is bigger than a small country's consumption somehow one sided. Of course it will result to that. Because you've combined all miners around the world's electricity consumption then just comapared it to a one small country. I don't think that's a fair comparison.
One way to stop burning carbon is to stop using electricity. But can we survive without electricity? No. It's not bitcoin's fault why there is too much carbon footprint. I think it would be easier to create solutions about it if the government accepts bitcoin so they'll be responsible finding solutions.

[Artemis3]

It is 2019, there are climate protests nearly every day all around the world. Meanwhile bitcoin is consuming more energy than a small country

In my opinion the bitcoin network needs to take responsibility and change so that it has a smaller footprint, it just isn't responsible to burn such a large amount of energy for such little utility. I honestly felt a little ashamed when I read that for a single transaction Bitcoin uses the amount of energy that could power an US home for 22 days! ^[1] This number will only be going up as the price rises.

Yes, I know this energy is securing the network, which is of course very important.
But shouldn't we try to find a way to minimize this energy consumption. Shouldn't we be looking for alternative methods? Maybe even something like Proof of Stake? There has to be a better way.

Or do you think that electricity consumption is not bad in itself, just the way it is made. eg. If all of bitcoin was powered by solar, it would be fine.

Bitcoin is not consuming anything, it is the miners hoping to reap the last profits, while the whole mining ecosystems gradually becomes less and less profitable, which fixes "the problem" by itself (no intervention).

Furthermore not all mining is using energy from carbon emissions. Many farms are using hydroelectric power, which in some places is plenty and overabundant.

There is no need to "take responsibility", and no one can, its code running a program as intended, and its working beautifully even outside its scope of execution. Bitcoin doesn't care if many or few people mine it, humans do, because its profitable, and they will stop, when it isn't (soon). Then you'll end with a lot of unused electrical capacity, which will come handy for the next stage in electric vehicle use...

And, if/when humanity manages to conquer fusion nuclear generation, price of energy will drop so hard the economy will have to reshape itself (and may even bring bitcoin mining back to becoming profitable for a little while).

Anyway you shouldn't be thinking "intervene" and just wait it out. The market is solving the issue by itself. Besides, Bitcoin was designed so it can't be "intervened" so easily, those very miners and nodes have a say on the matter, for every tiny little change done to its code.

[Carlton Banks]

Price pollution? Is that correct? Just before this thread contineus, I just need to check, you're going with "price pollution"?

[wack slacker]

https://coincenter.org/entry/five-myths-about-bitcoin-s-energy-use  <---- There are a lot of fud being spread about Bitcoin's electricity use and how big it's carbon footprint is.

The reality is that Bitcoin mining is using a lot of electricity that are generated from environment friendly sources. A lot of mining are done with Hydroelectricity and electricity that are produced from wind power or wind energy.

Do not believe everything you read in the mass media, because a lot of that can be debunked and has been debunked in the past. 

Very reasonable, they use electricity mostly from hydroelectricity, solar power, using wind energy.  If you say that Bitcoin consumes a large amount of energy, this makes more sense.  Bitcoin mining creates a lot of electronic waste for the environment.  For example, old motherboards are damaged, broken asic machines are often removed immediately, graphics cards can be used to serve gamers.

[Wintersoldier]

Very reasonable, they use electricity mostly from hydroelectricity, solar power, using wind energy.  If you say that Bitcoin consumes a large amount of energy, this makes more sense.  Bitcoin mining creates a lot of electronic waste for the environment.  For example, old motherboards are damaged, broken asic machines are often removed immediately, graphics cards can be used to serve gamers.

Most of the time, coals are subjected to the production of electricity especially if the mining facility resides on a usual and normal community. Basically using hydroelectricity, solar power, and wind energy will not supply enough power to run mining facilities since it consumes a lot of resources, in order for it to save, the protocol inside of the system or blockchain should be developed. I agree with some users who think about changing POS to POW or vise-versa and consider which is more efficient in terms of power consumption.

[blockchainmarketing]

That's why Ethereum is here!!!

[Wind_FURY]

It's Christmas time, the "POW is killing the environment" trolls should go on a rampage to stop Christmas because Christmas lights are wasting electricity, and destroying the planet.

But what was that? They also don't care? They just want to troll Bitcoin? OK.

[Carlton Banks]

The facts are simple on this IMO

1. Most people don't even get the reason we use money at all, and they don't care
2. So even fewer people are ever going to understand why PoW is such a smart solution for anti-corrupt money


I can just imagine the exact sort of person I'm thinking of, reading this and saying "b-b-b-but Bitcoin is the most corrupt money! It's the dark web!"


And the answer is simple: it's not corrupt when everybody has an equal chance to use it. Only well-connected people can use the regular banks to get away with corruption. Everyone drinking alcohol in prohibition America was a criminal too, until they revoked prohibition laws. Magic!!


and so -

Q is it worth using energy so that we all have an equal opportunity to use our own money how we choose?
A It's not even relevant, because even though Bitcoin achieves that, it's impossible to stop it even if you disagree

Bitcoin was designed to be unstoppable, being freely available to everyone was only a side effect of that

[ene1980]

It is 2019, there are climate protests nearly every day all around the world. Meanwhile bitcoin is consuming more energy than a small country

The climate is changing world wide and it is a real issue but putting all the fault into bitcoin is not the way things have to be done, here you are talking about the global mining energy consumption and if you are taking that into account you need to take the rest of the industries globally and calculate how much energy they are using. I wonder whether these tech companies are using green energy to power their servers globally and i bet they are eating a lot of energy combined than bitcoin mining and it will pale in comparison.