Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument

[LegendaryK]

Re-posting this:

Alright. Back to ignoring reality.

Once PoW mining is banned , coming soon.
BlackHatCoiner will do exactly what he doing now, pretending it did not happen.

But for people that live in this reality,  
well any coin unable to transact is worth zero.
In BTC and Game of Thrones, being a hodler does not end well.  

Let me repeat this, since some people can't grasp it's meaning.
The White House Office of Science and Technology is recommending to the US President that PoW be Eliminated from the US.
And 1 executive order and btc PoW mining in the US is dead overnight.
*That means your btc becomes worthless, literally overnight with just the stroke of a pen.*

FYI: What does Vitalik Buterin think about Proof of Stake?
https://cointelegraph.com/news/pos-will-make-ethereum-more-secure-than-bitcoin-says-vitalik-buterin

PoS Will Make Ethereum More Secure Than Bitcoin, Says Vitalik Buterin

What does Charles Hoskinson think about Proof of Stake?
https://forkast.news/video-audio/iohk-charles-hoskinson-proof-of-stake-better-than-proof-of-work/

IOHK’s Charles Hoskinson says proof of stake is much better than proof of work

What does White House Office of Science and Technology think about Proof of Stake?
https://blockworks.co/white-house-criticizes-proof-of-work-crypto-mining/

According to the authors, the estimated global electricity usage of cryptoasset mining as of August 2022 exceeds the annual electricity usage of countries including Argentina and Australia, sitting roughly between 120 billion and 240 billion kilowatt-hours per year.

High energy consumption will likely lead to disastrous consequences for daily Americans, the White House says, not only exacerbating “climate-driven weather extremes,” but also threatening the stability of electricity grids as it could “push up power prices for local consumers.”

Specifically, the report criticizes the proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism — which currently represents more than 60% of the total cryptoasset market capitalization, stating that “given the electricity usage estimates, most discussions about crypto-asset electricity usage has focused on PoW applications, particularly Bitcoin.”

It reasons that responsible development of digital assets must include solutions to drastically reduce its energy consumption and suggests the “less energy-intensive consensus mechanism, called Proof of Stake (PoS), estimated to consume up to 0.28 billion kilowatt-hours per year in 2021, less than 0.001% of global electricity usage,” could be a viable alternative. 

“There have been growing calls for PoW blockchains to adopt less energy-intensive consensus mechanisms,” the report said. “The most prominent reaction has been Ethereum’s promised launch of “Ethereum 2.0,” which uses a PoS consensus mechanism.”

[1713968467]

1713968467

[1713968467]

1713968467

[1713968467]

1713968467

[1713968467]

1713968467

[1713968467]

1713968467

[shogun47]

While Bitcoin PoW continues to be an insanely stupid waste of energy resources.

Ethereum has evolved leaving behind the dead-end technology know as Proof of work/Waste.

Once again you arrive with your antics of proof of work being an energy monster that on the verge of being banned, when even Ethereum's own (former) miners disagree with you.

The truth is, banning Proof of Work will immediately kill the following cryptocurrencies:

- Bitcoin
- Litecoin
- Dogecoin
- Monero
- Dash
- Zcash
- The dozens of cyptocurrencies listed here

Do you really think all these guys are going to stand idly or rush to cripple their networks with the market-manipulation-capable PoS while Congress hurriedly wants to put a bullet through their chests?

You'd have to be looney to believe that governmental attempts to kill decentalized mining are going to succeed, since by its very nature it operates worldwide. Better start wearing your Elmer Fudd hunting cap now...

Ethereum chose to shoot itself in the foot. They have freedom to do that if they want.

This is certainly correct considering all the recent news that came especially from the US. They are way more active and up to date with crypto things these days and this Cointelegraph article among several others perfectly underpins what you have just said.

Exactly because the US government is making progress in all things crypto, they've decided against a PoW ban I think just recently. What they do want though is that it needs to be frequently checked whether PoW stays in line with the carbon footprint goals. Those are pretty soft words, almost sounds like they actively advocate mining. What they do ask for in a more compelling way these days is for mining facilities to successively invest more resources into renewable energies. That wording and tone is as far away from a ban as it can get. It does clearly sound like the intention to cooperate rather than putting PoW out of business.

The Cointelegraph article has a nice quote:

“We didn’t ban it at the beginning because we didn’t realize it was important, and we didn’t ban it now because there’s too much money and power behind it.”

That is exactly how everything enfolded. Many smart people in congress are invested themselves for sure.

Will there always be voices threatening that there is a ban around the corner? Of course! It is much more likely that AML regulations are going to be stricter and stricter over time and make things more complicated for people who value privacy. But can it get any worse than the NSA scandal?

[LegendaryK]

Exactly because the US government is making progress in all things crypto, they've decided against a PoW ban I think just recently.

Nope,
recommendations to the US President from the White House Office of Science and Technology is that PoW mining be banned.

White House Office of Science and Technology is in favor of Proof of Stake and critical of Proof of Work/waste:
https://blockworks.co/white-house-criticizes-proof-of-work-crypto-mining/

According to the authors, the estimated global electricity usage of cryptoasset mining as of August 2022 exceeds the annual electricity usage of countries including Argentina and Australia, sitting roughly between 120 billion and 240 billion kilowatt-hours per year.

High energy consumption will likely lead to disastrous consequences for daily Americans, the White House says, not only exacerbating “climate-driven weather extremes,” but also threatening the stability of electricity grids as it could “push up power prices for local consumers.”

Specifically, the report criticizes the proof-of-work (PoW) consensus mechanism — which currently represents more than 60% of the total cryptoasset market capitalization, stating that “given the electricity usage estimates, most discussions about crypto-asset electricity usage has focused on PoW applications, particularly Bitcoin.”

It reasons that responsible development of digital assets must include solutions to drastically reduce its energy consumption and suggests the “less energy-intensive consensus mechanism, called Proof of Stake (PoS), estimated to consume up to 0.28 billion kilowatt-hours per year in 2021, less than 0.001% of global electricity usage,” could be a viable alternative.  

“There have been growing calls for PoW blockchains to adopt less energy-intensive consensus mechanisms,” the report said.
“The most prominent reaction has been Ethereum’s promised launch of “Ethereum 2.0,” which uses a PoS consensus mechanism.”

[philipma1957]

THE us is attacking all of crypto at the moment via Usa Savings bonds in particular the I bond.

As I type the I bond pays 9.62% for the first six moneys you purchased it.

Eth a wild card meaning not pegged to usd pays 3-4% staked

Most stable coins pegged to the USD pay 3-8%

there are 330 million us citizens that can buy 10000 in bonds each and every year.

so 3.3 trillion a year can be purchased

the entire crypto can in under 1.5 billion.

So basically all coins pos = piece of shit or pow


btw pow in the worst case scenario would help to melt all the ice and kill off 2-3 billion people.

Which is why Trump was looking to buy Greenland.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cosmetics-billionaire-convinced-trump-u-121218552.html?


banning pow is not happening.

Not when the US is clearly attacking pos and stable coins with I bonds.

come back on Oct 2 when new I bond rates are given  they will be close to 9% and all of crypto especially stable coins and ETH will be attacked for 6 more months.

[LegendaryK]

THE us is attacking all of crypto at the moment via Usa Savings bonds in particular the I bond.

As I type the I bond pays 9.62% for the first six moneys you purchased it.

Eth a wild card meaning not pegged to usd pays 3-4% staked

Most stable coins pegged to the USD pay 3-8%

Not when the US is clearly attacking pos and stable coins with I bonds.

come back on Oct 2 when new I bond rates are given  they will be close to 9% and all of crypto especially stable coins and ETH will be attacked for 6 more months.

I can accept the US is offering a higher interest rate,
to gain an influx into the US $.

But as you said,
IBOND over 9%,

BTC PoW coins are zero % for their holders.

And when rising energy costs, miners are begging for venture capital just to maintain PoW mining.
Putting the entire network at risk, however a PoW ban is coming, it is a foregone conclusion to all of these rolling blackouts in the US,
energy resources are stretched too thin, and PoW has to be removed to protect the grid's safety margin.
Bitcoin reward model does not become deflationary until 2140.
And that weak deflation is only from lost coins.
It's PoW tech will be banned worldwide by 2024.

Ethereum ~4%, but with the change to PoS,
Ethereum becomes deflationary,  
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-09-08/ethereum-upgrade-s-perks-include-crypto-deflation

The upgrade will effectively shift the blockchain from using miners to much more energy-efficient validators for ordering transactions and in doing so, will slash the amount of new Ether issued to reward various key entities involved in the process by about 90%.
At the same time, the network will continue to burn Ether.
That should bring Ether’s net coin supply inflation to zero or less, according to calculations by the Ethereum Foundation.
Crypto tracker Ultra Sound Money predicts Ether supply could peak right around the time of the Merge before beginning to decline.

With Ether’s supply stable, or even decreasing, that could potentially make every existing coin more valuable,

The US $ is seeing a massive assault from inflation in Energy and Food Costs.
While the Ibond hold over 9%, the falsy reported low inflation rate of 8.6% (We all know it is much higher),
means that Ibond is only earning .4% and since inflation is higher that IBond is really at a negative rate.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2022/consumer-prices-up-8-6-percent-over-year-ended-may-2022.htm

Ethereum and PoS coins are the only real games in town ,
as the US $ continues on the path to hyper inflation, their network can continue, and earnings verse fiat will increase.

BTC PoW will be banned by 2024, or be crushed before then by the rising energy costs from Utilities as Miners close shop to avoid bankruptcy.
https://www.coindesk.com/business/2022/09/01/bitcoin-mining-middleman-compass-georgia-facilities-to-close-as-energy-prices-soar/

Two Georgia facilities used by Compass Mining, a middleman that allows retail investors to participate in bitcoin production, are closing as power costs in the U.S. state soar.
The owner of the sites is shutting down because the local utility provider has increased prices, a major cost for bitcoin mining, by more than 50%

FYI:
It won't matter if IBONDS give 100% interest in US$ , if Inflation goes to 101%,
you are still in the negative %.   

[Dunamisx]

bitcoin can transform energy industry and there is much explanation to how this can be achieved, well it already in progress despite the fact that there have been many reports on it hight cost of electricity demand but there's fairness in it impact on the environment because as it has no detrimental cause or loss incurred during the process, time without number it has been said that bitcoin has no effect on environmental hazard, it rather give a solution in solving the already accumulated challenges through bitcoin carbon footprint lot need to be taught on this regarding the bitcoin mining and the corresponding impact on the environment which has been the course of discussion since the beginning of this thread and yet the argument of PoW from PoS shouldn't be a thing of contention because nothing can be changed from bitcoin using PoW because in doing this, miners get their rewards also.


source

[fillippone]

<...>

Great news, and, curiously, I got to the same Twitter Bubble a few days after you.

Yes, Bitcoin Mining can actually help oil producers to turn their waste methane, a very powerful greenhouse gas, into a precious resource used to mine bitcoins.

Upstream, as we saw in the thread, is building Power Generators running on the methane vended from oilfields, powering ASICS:




This can help bitcoin becoming carbon neutral, or even carbon negative!




Even legacy institutions, not exactly favorable of Bitcoin, are starting to realize how important it is.







I guess those are very good point, while discussing this topics with uninformed people!

[fillippone]

The Bitcoin Mining Council Released their Latest Update:



They pushed the rhetoric of Bitcoin as a clean energy usage accelerator:

Bitcoin mining, in Q3 2022:
1. Uses an inconsequential amount of global energy (16bps) and generates negligible carbon emissions (10bps)
2. Bitcoin mining hashrate is up 73% YoY while energy usage is up 41% YoY, due to an increase in efficiency of 23%
3. Bitcoin is the industry leader in sustainability with a 59.4% sustainable energy mix
4. Bitcoin is the most secure crypto network, 100x more
powerful than all competing networks combined.

Read more here

[Zanab247]

The Bitcoin Mining Council Released their Latest Update:



They pushed the rhetoric of Bitcoin as a clean energy usage accelerator:

Bitcoin mining, in Q3 2022:
1. Uses an inconsequential amount of global energy (16bps) and generates negligible carbon emissions (10bps)
2. Bitcoin mining hashrate is up 73% YoY while energy usage is up 41% YoY, due to an increase in efficiency of 23%
3. Bitcoin is the industry leader in sustainability with a 59.4% sustainable energy mix
4. Bitcoin is the most secure crypto network, 100x more
powerful than all competing networks combined.

Read more here

I think, this is a sign that Bitcoin is not an environmental disaster to the community than to contribute positive things in the community by helping the youths to have access to the most secure crypto network in the community. This latest update will really make people to believe that Bitcoin is not an environmental disaster to the world economy than to create more opportunities for the users or miners to have access to sustainable network to improve their development in the community.

[$anounimus$]

The Bitcoin Mining Council Released their Latest Update:



They pushed the rhetoric of Bitcoin as a clean energy usage accelerator:

Bitcoin mining, in Q3 2022:
1. Uses an inconsequential amount of global energy (16bps) and generates negligible carbon emissions (10bps)
2. Bitcoin mining hashrate is up 73% YoY while energy usage is up 41% YoY, due to an increase in efficiency of 23%
3. Bitcoin is the industry leader in sustainability with a 59.4% sustainable energy mix
4. Bitcoin is the most secure crypto network, 100x more
powerful than all competing networks combined.

Read more here

Yes, very comprehensive, testing awareness about cryptocurrencies. The public focus is clearly on business development and investment. Addressing these challenges will require further ingenuity and innovation in increasingly constrained carbon (energy) and this is an opportunity for those in the sector.

[stompix]

They pushed the rhetoric of Bitcoin as a clean energy usage accelerator:

Because the others don't work anymore, so that's where they need to concentrate PR efforts.
Anyhow, another of those "researches"  show how unreliable this whole stuff is

let's put together two of their reports:
Q3 2021
https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021.10.19-Q3-BMC-Presentation-Materials-Final.pdf
Q3 2022
https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/2022.10.13-BMC-Presentation-Q3-22-Presentation.pdf

Now, spot the differences:



Oh wait, there aren't that many because they are recycling the data form other industries over and over for almost two years!

Anyhow:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/banking-system-consumes-two-times-more-energy-than-bitcoin-research

Banking system consumes two times more energy than Bitcoin: Research
According to Galaxy’s estimates, the annual energy usage of Bitcoin stands at 114 TWh, while the banking industry consumes over 260 TWh each year.

RIP! 

Christmas Lights Use More Power than Bitcoin Mining
RIP!

Bitcoin Mining Consumes Less Energy Than Gaming, Reveals Report
RIP!

Let's see if BTC reaches 100k before the halving what more of those from the list we can strart to scratch.

As I said previously:

It is what it is and that's the end of it, comparisons are just waiting around the corner to bite you in the ass

Seems it's that time already!

[fillippone]

Lyn Alden just updated a great article she wrote  back in April 2021 with new data and contents.
It is a compulsory read for everyone falling for the “bitcoin consumes too much energy fallacy”.

Bitcoin’s Energy Usage Isn’t a Problem. Here’s Why.

A lot of material in this thread covered already these topics. But here they are cleverly summarised and exposed.

[franky1]

the foolish utilisation of "the cambridge report" is where many lies lay

everyone know these facts:
network hashrate is peaking at 272exa this week. does not mean that miners hashed at 272exa every day for the previous year. (thus energy report estimates are already too high)

s9's, s11, s15 and s17's asics are not profitable in reality. no one is still mining using outdated hardware. (thus energy report estimates are already too high)

when asic farms set up within xx miles of a green renewable power generator. they are using green energy physically. (although reports sets them as generalised in a wider region/area to set them in the report as using a 'mix energy source')

when asic farms form 6month-2 year contracts with power generation companies. they are rightfully buying an allotment that the power company would else waste, as that allotment is outside of the residential retail 'demand' thus usually goes unpaid for if it were not for the asic farm

the power usage is more so near the 50TWH per year.. not 150
the green % is more then 60%

my feeling is these 'cambridge report' numbers have been fabricated as worse case fudged numbers, so that given a few years politicians can ask cambridge to supply real numbers so politicians can say they fixed the problem. even when there was none..

for those wanting the most basic paper/brain maths that doesnt need a calculator
the average network hashrate for the year 220exa
the average terrahash/watt for asics 0.025

the average 100terrahash/kw for asics 2.5
the average 100petahash/mw for asics 2.5
the average 100exahash/gw for asics 2.5
the average 200exahash/gw for asics 5
the average 220exahash/gw for asics 5.5
5.5*24*365=43800gwh/year
=48.18twh/year

[fillippone]

The bitcoin mining Council released their quarterly presentation:



A lot of numbers inside. Of course always questionable metrics, but at least they are improving.

Curtailment results seems also very promising.

[fillippone]

Today there was news about a Bitcoin mining data centre being powered by nuclear power plant:

America’s first nuclear-powered Bitcoin mining center to open in Pennsylvania

The 48-megawatt, 300,000-square-foot data center is directly connected to the Susquehanna nuclear power plant in northeast Pennsylvania, and its 1,200-acre campus is expected to host Bitcoin mining and cloud computing services – the first of its kind in the U.S.

The data centre is separated from the Nuclear Plan, so there is no synergy for the electrical producer. The data centre is plugged right away from the center is a good news, but actually not a major development.

The real game changer would be the data centre inside the power plant, with the miner revenue directly competing with electricity sold elsewhere.

So it is a little bit of a marketing stunt, but positive as it helps the narrative of a “clean bitcoin mining”.

Now with the interesting part and what I like the most: back-of-the-envelope calculations.

48 Megawatt are sufficient to power roughly 15,500 Bitmain
Antminer S19j Pro (104Th), one of the most energy efficient miner around.

Those nice army of beasts can churn roughly 1,610,400 Th/s, or roughly 0.6% of the total hash power.
This means the total bitcoin mining network can be visually represented as 170 of those datacenters!

[stompix]

The data centre is separated from the Nuclear Plan, so there is no synergy for the electrical producer. The data centre is plugged right away from the center is a good news, but actually not a major development.

The real game changer would be the data centre inside the power plant, with the miner revenue directly competing with electricity sold elsewhere.

Not sure what you mean by that.
For the owner of the nuclear power plant being the owner of the datacenter also and having it fed first to the miner and balancing the need to the actual grid with the demand from the data center or the actual physical thing being inside, cause the second one is not going to happen. A nuclear power plant can choose to have electricity sent directly to a close consumer without the need to raise the voltage for long-distance purposes but the IAEA will never allow a major consumer with cooling needs and fire hazard to settle anywhere near the facility, never!

The deal is as good as it could ever get, is a partnership between a reliable 24/7 electricity producer and a mining company, built in an area nobody can complain about heat and noise, and with minimal loss, it doesn't affect anything locally as a town grid and it can still function as a grid load balancing if emergencies arise.

Finally, we have some true reliable no carbon mining done that is not hydro at a large scale, not the jokes like solar and wind.

[cryptosize]

I wonder if TSMC would be interested to build ASICs themselves... they have the edge in microchip wafers.

[Carlton Banks]

I saw an interesting thread on reddit the other day

OP claimed that as more and more energy production/extraction facilities begin to mine bitcoin with their 'slack', that this will begin to both affect the dynamics of bitcoin's market price, and also that bitcoin mining and the BTC price will begin to affect energy prices too.

If you owned an energy production/extraction facility, and you could (momentarily) make more money mining BTC than selling energy, you'd do it, right? That's pushing energy prices up (and correspondingly down again when mining profits return to parity with the BTC market price)

So bitcoin's status as a reserve currency, possibly even as the currency hydro-carbons are traded for, from now on is a mere formality. Big political interests (big gangsters, really) are now openly in the market, because it's a perfect complement to their operation. Bitcoin and energy are (and always have been) inextricably linked.


I'm pretty sure someone said something along these lines years ago (here on bitcointalk). Cue environment cultists crying into their Starbucks frapaccinos

[franky1]

If you owned an energy production/extraction facility, and you could (momentarily) make more money mining BTC than selling energy, you'd do it, right? That's pushing energy prices up (and correspondingly down again when mining profits return to parity with the BTC market price)

power plants may be private businesses but they have government contracts and grant/finance deals to provide a sustainable service to residents/retail. where by they cant just stop servicing residential customers and just put all that energy into industry customers

that said
when NEW power plants start up. they are not making just capacity to meet current need. they are building a 50 year plan to meet future demand.

this mean in the first couple decades they may have 50 users of a 100 user capacity meaning they are charging the 50 customers 2x the 100customer cost because there are only 50 customers

so by allowing industry to jump in and buy up the excess 50. it means the existing 50 customers pay less over all

[fillippone]

If you owned an energy production/extraction facility, and you could (momentarily) make more money mining BTC than selling energy, you'd do it, right? That's pushing energy prices up (and correspondingly down again when mining profits return to parity with the BTC market price)

The real game changer is when you set up energy producing facilities only to mine bitcoins. Gas flaring and mining from geothermal energy are perfect examples of this: those plants are usually too far from consumption sites that transporting energy is far from being profitable.
Bitcoin is opening a new use case for that wasted energy to be instead used to secure the network.