Will energy consumption be Bitcoins downfall ?

[songchunlai]

If there are robots that will improve productivity quickly, you can build more power plants ahead of time.

[harlequininja]

Mining is just incredibly inefficient. That's a simple fact. Every other industry makes use of its exhaust heat. Miner create millions of watt of exhaust heat unused. That's pretty ridiculous in my opinion if you have a technology these days that is viewed as cutting edge. 

[samsul1234]

Just as people moved from gasoline powered cars to electric will investors also move from bitcoin to ecofriendly alts?

hello sir, I think it will come true after we see how broken the market is now, maybe everyone will choose altcoins as a backup, or as a backup when bitcoin is at its lowest price

[franky1]

Mining is just incredibly inefficient. That's a simple fact. Every other industry makes use of its exhaust heat. Miner create millions of watt of exhaust heat unused. That's pretty ridiculous in my opinion if you have a technology these days that is viewed as cutting edge.  

exhaust is like 1%

if it was efficient to use heat to create electric from the heat of that same electric device.
then that would be perpetual energy..
however you wont be able to power a kettle perpetually with its own steam.
and thats even when 100% energy is going towards heat production

so when a kettle can use 3.25kw to boil water to 100^o
but an asic that uses 3.25kw to mine only emits a 1^o of heat
it would require over 100 asics to boil a kettle.

i hope you start to see your error in assumption.. if not continue reading
and then the loss of energy in the steam->turbine->electric wire transfer means it would require even more then 100 asics just to power 1 asic

thus the under 1% 'inefficiency' by not using its own heat..

as for millions of watts. aka 1MW.
well asics if all combined in one area is about say 4gwh spent electric(38tw/y). so if all that heat emission was to be re-utilised would create ~20mwh

in short. 1.3mill asics heat emission. if utilised. would only power about 6k asics
0.46%
(i even ignored many factors of conversion to try giving you a over assumed number in your favour. real number is much lower)

[harlequininja]

exhaust is like 1%

Since this is the basis of your argument, can you explain where this assumption/fact comes from.

With regard to thermodynamics you create 3.25KW of heat. The only problem is its density and how to extract it most efficiently. Bitcoin is just a nice virtual surplus.

There are already studies about efficient and affordable thermomagnetic materials for harvesting low grade waste heat.

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/5.0033970

Bitcoin as a catalyst of social change is obliged to be at the forefront of these technologies.

[zbig001]

Mining is just incredibly inefficient. That's a simple fact. Every other industry makes use of its exhaust heat. Miner create millions of watt of exhaust heat unused. That's pretty ridiculous in my opinion if you have a technology these days that is viewed as cutting edge. 

The propaganda of Bitcoin's enemies has little to do with the facts.

And if it does, it will always be an example of a selective, unfair, instrumental approach to facts.

Bitcoin mining is infinitely energy efficient, if you take into account the proportion of incurred energetic cost to benefits.
Each mined bitcoin (representing hardest possible, highest form of money) will serve users until the end of the world, changing owners an infinite number of times.
In an infinitely effective way (i.e. with negligible fees), because mainly with the help of countless L2 solutions, not on L1.
No bitcoin will ever have to be mined again (except for attempted attacks on the network), and the sum of bitcoins mined will never exceed the amount specified in the protocol.
Thanks to merged mining, once a proof of work is made, it can be reused by an unlimited number of other networks (not necessarily monetary ones), with virtually no additional energy expenditure.

This is, of course, the opposite of fiat currencies and PoS altcoins.
The number of units of these currencies increases infinitely and this process will never end, and the energy demand for securing them will also increase forever.
Since traditional financial, control and supervisory systems use energy, and energy is also used to wage trade wars, armed conflicts and to accelerate consumerism (a necessary condition for the survival of any inflationary currency).

And this cannot be stopped unless a Bitcoin standard, similar to the gold standard prevailing before, is adopted.

[harlequininja]

Mining is just incredibly inefficient. That's a simple fact. Every other industry makes use of its exhaust heat. Miner create millions of watt of exhaust heat unused. That's pretty ridiculous in my opinion if you have a technology these days that is viewed as cutting edge. 

The propaganda of Bitcoin's enemies has little to do with the facts.

And if it does, it will always be an example of a selective, unfair, instrumental approach to facts.

Bitcoin mining is infinitely energy efficient, if you take into account the proportion of incurred energetic cost to benefits.
Each mined bitcoin (representing hardest possible, highest form of money) will serve users until the end of the world, changing owners an infinite number of times.
In an infinitely effective way (i.e. with negligible fees), because mainly with the help of countless L2 solutions, not on L1.
No bitcoin will ever have to be mined again (except for attempted attacks on the network), and the sum of bitcoins mined will never exceed the amount specified in the protocol.
Thanks to merged mining, once a proof of work is made, it can be reused by an unlimited number of other networks (not necessarily monetary ones), with virtually no additional energy expenditure.

This is, of course, the opposite of fiat currencies and PoS altcoins.
The number of units of these currencies increases infinitely and this process will never end, and the energy demand for securing them will also increase forever.
Since traditional financial, control and supervisory systems use energy, and energy is also used to wage trade wars, armed conflicts and to accelerate consumerism (a necessary condition for the survival of any inflationary currency).

And this cannot be stopped unless a Bitcoin standard, similar to the gold standard prevailing before, is adopted.

Like Daniel wrote in his essay on the nakamotoinstitute https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/its-not-about-the-technology-its-about-the-money/ Bitcoin's value is a collective hallucination that derives its value from its narrative, like any other virtual value attribute to something physical.
Bitcoin's success depends on this narrative. If the narrative doesn't connect to the people Bitcoin will be worth nothing.
One of the greatest obstacles in that regard will be the narrative of sustainability, because it is one of the most influential narratives in our time, whether you like or not.
That is why every company that is seriously generating value on the internet (Google, Amazon etc.) has committed itself to act sustainable.
If Bitcoin and its community manages to set the standard in sustainability the narrative of Bitcoin is hardened not weakened and would proof the critics wrong once more. Its an opportunity not a threat.
 

[ropyu1978]

although I don't think so, because from the start bitcoin was POW. even though bitcoin consumes quite a lot of electrical energy, there will still be a lot of interest because the reason is one POW itself, besides that this is a king and king, even though electricity is big and even though it is not environmentally friendly the king will still be king, it's hard to replace bitcoin

your review is very reasonable my friend is very interested in your review the king is still the king whatever happens the king is difficult to replace with more and more enthusiasts, the price of bitcoin is even more soaring because the items that are sought after must be expensive, I also don't agree that bitcoin prices go down because of energy waste .

[zbig001]

Like Daniel wrote in his essay on the nakamotoinstitute https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/its-not-about-the-technology-its-about-the-money/ Bitcoin's value is a collective hallucination that derives its value from its narrative, like any other virtual value attribute to something physical.
Bitcoin's success depends on this narrative. If the narrative doesn't connect to the people Bitcoin will be worth nothing.
One of the greatest obstacles in that regard will be the narrative of sustainability, because it is one of the most influential narratives in our time, whether you like or not.
That is why every company that is seriously generating value on the internet (Google, Amazon etc.) has committed itself to act sustainable.
If Bitcoin and its community manages to set the standard in sustainability the narrative of Bitcoin is hardened not weakened and would proof the critics wrong once more. Its an opportunity not a threat.
 

I would agree that Bitcoin is not a tap water that needs no ideology/narrative at all...
But when we have a system that thermodynamically is incomparably better than the previous ways of creating and securing money, it should be able to survive even periods of deep pushed into the counterculture zone.
It may be still too early to dream that such periods are over.
Energy consumption of 0.2% of global consumption is met with aggression as if it were at least 20%, and when you try to discuss and explain that mining could facilitate the transition to renewable energy and achieve the goal of a carbon neutral economy, you can easily come across an attitude like "lalalalala, I can't hear you".

[Reosta_]

No, it won't. Because Bitcoin mining won't go on like this by consuming high electricity and using fossil fuels at a high rate. Eventually, we will see it continuing with 100 percent renewable energies. Then, it could even be its rise rather than a "downfall".

[Tarin Hart]

Energy consumption will not lead to the collapse of bitcoin. The production and transportation of banknotes will also consume energy. Since the emergence of banknotes, the energy consumption is no less than that of bitcoin.

Bitcoin mining is mainly in some countries with excess electricity, and mainly in areas with hydropower and solar power generation. Electricity will not be preserved, it can be used to use electricity, so as not to waste electricity.

[sherryDEFI]

As for the shortage of energy in the future, it is not only blockchain technology that consumes a large amount of energy in the world, but also big data technology. If you want to combat the culprit of energy consumption, you can't just hold onto the blockchain technology. Moreover, only considering the energy consumption of blockchain mining is obviously not comprehensive. Google information security engineer Marc Bevand believes that miners' demand for energy will stimulate innovation in the field of renewable energy, and blockchain technology is likely to promote the demand for clean energy.

[harlequininja]

Like Daniel wrote in his essay on the nakamotoinstitute https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/its-not-about-the-technology-its-about-the-money/ Bitcoin's value is a collective hallucination that derives its value from its narrative, like any other virtual value attribute to something physical.
Bitcoin's success depends on this narrative. If the narrative doesn't connect to the people Bitcoin will be worth nothing.
One of the greatest obstacles in that regard will be the narrative of sustainability, because it is one of the most influential narratives in our time, whether you like or not.
That is why every company that is seriously generating value on the internet (Google, Amazon etc.) has committed itself to act sustainable.
If Bitcoin and its community manages to set the standard in sustainability the narrative of Bitcoin is hardened not weakened and would proof the critics wrong once more. Its an opportunity not a threat.
 

I would agree that Bitcoin is not a tap water that needs no ideology/narrative at all...
But when we have a system that thermodynamically is incomparably better than the previous ways of creating and securing money, it should be able to survive even periods of deep pushed into the counterculture zone.
It may be still too early to dream that such periods are over.
Energy consumption of 0.2% of global consumption is met with aggression as if it were at least 20%, and when you try to discuss and explain that mining could facilitate the transition to renewable energy and achieve the goal of a carbon neutral economy, you can easily come across an attitude like "lalalalala, I can't hear you".

I know what you mean! Its related to the fact, that energy is the foundation of our civilization and is still largely in the hands of a few monopolies. They not only fear Bitcoin they also fear the decentralization of energy production. Since Bitcoin enables raising the profit of small renewable plants, it increases the autonomy of the individual on that level. In some countries subsidies for old power plants are running out. Old wind turbines and solar plants sell there electricity for less than 5cent. People are already starting to built data centers nearby.

[perfect999]

Just as people moved from gasoline powered cars to electric will investors also move from bitcoin to ecofriendly alts?

I don’t really think so. But yes a lot of people don’t like that bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, and for sure there are going to be people who are going to leave Bitcoin to go for all those greener altcoins, but that is not the end for Bitcoin. If you have been reading the news or doing research about bitcoin mining, you’re going to know that a lot of mining companies now are starting to move to mining Bitcoin with renewable energy source. I know of a company that 95% of their mining is with renewable energy, and then 5% is from nuclear.

[oemar bakrie]

there is a possibility that it will happen, but all there must be very neat research because bitcoin is already at its highest point than other investments..
and also many people who already understand about bitcoin

[Gatorelf]

After Elon Musk's tweet about energy consumption, why do many people think that only bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, but if we compare it to industrial factories around the world, bitcoin consumes very little energy because bitcoin mining factories exist in only a few countries, whereas factories industry already exists throughout the country.

  People are aware there are more than one mined cryptocurrency just as there is more than one bank competing for consumer business. Now that there are crypto's competition for market share cryptos such as Nano may start capturing a little more of the market. BTC will continue to get the Lions share for many more years as it was the first, is well weathered and has the name.

Just as people moved from gasoline powered cars to electric will investors also move from bitcoin to ecofriendly alts?

I don’t really think so. But yes a lot of people don’t like that bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, and for sure there are going to be people who are going to leave Bitcoin to go for all those greener altcoins, but that is not the end for Bitcoin. If you have been reading the news or doing research about bitcoin mining, you’re going to know that a lot of mining companies now are starting to move to mining Bitcoin with renewable energy source. I know of a company that 95% of their mining is with renewable energy, and then 5% is from nuclear.

I think at the very least we will start seeing some diversification into established coins using POS as regardless of the sources of energy its vastly less than POW

[Vaskiy]

After Elon Musk's tweet about energy consumption, why do many people think that only bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, but if we compare it to industrial factories around the world, bitcoin consumes very little energy because bitcoin mining factories exist in only a few countries, whereas factories industry already exists throughout the country.

  People are aware there are more than one mined cryptocurrency just as there is more than one bank competing for consumer business. Now that there are crypto's competition for market share cryptos such as Nano may start capturing a little more of the market. BTC will continue to get the Lions share for many more years as it was the first, is well weathered and has the name.

Just as people moved from gasoline powered cars to electric will investors also move from bitcoin to ecofriendly alts?

I don’t really think so. But yes a lot of people don’t like that bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, and for sure there are going to be people who are going to leave Bitcoin to go for all those greener altcoins, but that is not the end for Bitcoin. If you have been reading the news or doing research about bitcoin mining, you’re going to know that a lot of mining companies now are starting to move to mining Bitcoin with renewable energy source. I know of a company that 95% of their mining is with renewable energy, and then 5% is from nuclear.

I think at the very least we will start seeing some diversification into established coins using POS as regardless of the sources of energy its vastly less than POW

By the time it is a must to think of the scenario without POW. Such a scenario isn't possible, because majority of the POS coins gets tied to the POW in some form and there is massive dependence. The better solution is the production of energy efficient hardware equipments.

[dark1234]

After Elon Musk's tweet about energy consumption, why do many people think that only bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, but if we compare it to industrial factories around the world, bitcoin consumes very little energy because bitcoin mining factories exist in only a few countries, whereas factories industry already exists throughout the country.

  People are aware there are more than one mined cryptocurrency just as there is more than one bank competing for consumer business. Now that there are crypto's competition for market share cryptos such as Nano may start capturing a little more of the market. BTC will continue to get the Lions share for many more years as it was the first, is well weathered and has the name.

Just as people moved from gasoline powered cars to electric will investors also move from bitcoin to ecofriendly alts?

I don’t really think so. But yes a lot of people don’t like that bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, and for sure there are going to be people who are going to leave Bitcoin to go for all those greener altcoins, but that is not the end for Bitcoin. If you have been reading the news or doing research about bitcoin mining, you’re going to know that a lot of mining companies now are starting to move to mining Bitcoin with renewable energy source. I know of a company that 95% of their mining is with renewable energy, and then 5% is from nuclear.

I think at the very least we will start seeing some diversification into established coins using POS as regardless of the sources of energy its vastly less than POW

the source of energy that causes problems in the world today is not only bitcoin so that there is a public opinion drive on bitcoin mining including one of the biggest contributors to the energy crisis but here the postal system which may be one solution there are still some who doubt it is not like the pow system already running

[dzonikg28]

After Elon Musk's tweet about energy consumption, why do many people think that only bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, but if we compare it to industrial factories around the world, bitcoin consumes very little energy because bitcoin mining factories exist in only a few countries, whereas factories industry already exists throughout the country.

  People are aware there are more than one mined cryptocurrency just as there is more than one bank competing for consumer business. Now that there are crypto's competition for market share cryptos such as Nano may start capturing a little more of the market. BTC will continue to get the Lions share for many more years as it was the first, is well weathered and has the name.

Just as people moved from gasoline powered cars to electric will investors also move from bitcoin to ecofriendly alts?

I don’t really think so. But yes a lot of people don’t like that bitcoin consumes a lot of energy, and for sure there are going to be people who are going to leave Bitcoin to go for all those greener altcoins, but that is not the end for Bitcoin. If you have been reading the news or doing research about bitcoin mining, you’re going to know that a lot of mining companies now are starting to move to mining Bitcoin with renewable energy source. I know of a company that 95% of their mining is with renewable energy, and then 5% is from nuclear.

I think at the very least we will start seeing some diversification into established coins using POS as regardless of the sources of energy its vastly less than POW

By the time it is a must to think of the scenario without POW. Such a scenario isn't possible, because majority of the POS coins gets tied to the POW in some form and there is massive dependence. The better solution is the production of energy efficient hardware equipments.

But I am a bit overwhelmed by the implications from a game theoretical perspective: mining is nothing but a competition for the next block reward/transaction fees. If we have more efficient hardware available for anyone, which it should be for the sake of decentralization and to avoid monopolistic mining, how then would that lead to a greener Bitcoin? Everyone could just buy the same mining hardware. Either more efficient mining hardware, which is probably more expensive, or less efficient hardware but more of it. Isn't in the end always the price of Bitcoin which dictates the carbon footprint in quite a direct way?

[Blowon]

That may be the case, but not now. Now there is no environmentally friendly crypto, If it is possible that he will become a rival to bitcoin in the future. But, it's been more than 3 years I've been in cryptocurrency I do not see the absence of an environmentally friendly cryptocurrency, I think some reliable programmers definitely immediately make it. We're all looking forward to it.