Will energy consumption be Bitcoins downfall ?

[Naficopa]

People moved to electric cars to save GAS/Patrol spending not to save the environment. Electric cars run on electricity and this electricity is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels.
PoW is power greedy and I don't think it will be replaced by any other consensus algo in the future. A counter argument is that bitcoin power consumption can be justified by using clean energy i.e. generated from water, wind, sun etc.

[Kittygalore]

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.

Cryptocurrencies are just electricity users and they aren't directly using power sources, what we should worry about is the electric power plants that uses pollutants to produce electricity. Think of crypto as a consumer and not as a provider.

[ampu]

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

Currently, fossil fuel-powered cars are still popular and countries have their own emission standards and other policies to balance the environment.
Bitcoin mining too, Bitcoin mining equipment is upgraded every year and has more renewable energy sources. Therefore, we need to look at Bitcoin positively.
I think users will not trade off security and decentralization when using Bitcoin to use other cryptocurrencies.

[Keila Faith Villanueva]

I think Bitcoin creates corresponding value with the energy it consumes, and the situation is far less serious than what the opponents say. Bitcoin will become a powerful force, and the energy used will be more environmentally friendly. The reliable economic incentives of the Bitcoin network will help the economy of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy. Moreover, the consumption of energy is not the same as the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and Bitcoin has very little carbon emissions.

[Tina H]

The value of the Bitcoin network is the same as that of other industries. It can use energy to create economic value. Although Bitcoin mining does consume energy, the question is, does it make sense to use energy to protect the Bitcoin network and process transactions? The answer is yes. The value storage and transfer of the Bitcoin network realizes value for its holders.

[Roy Asher]

The best form of the Bitcoin environmental case is to provide a simple way for power generation companies to monetize energy, and these redundant stores would have been wasted. For example, the electricity generated by wind power equipment peaks at night when the demand for electricity is low. Or, solar power generation equipment in sunny periods often exceeds consumer demand. In these cases, the resulting stores are surplus, which hinders the profitability of the power company. However, if these power companies sell part of the cheap electricity to Bitcoin miners, it will be a win-win situation: both parties can make more money, and the whole process does not produce carbon emissions.

[Gatorelf]

People moved to electric cars to save GAS/Patrol spending not to save the environment. Electric cars run on electricity and this electricity is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels.
PoW is power greedy and I don't think it will be replaced by any other consensus algo in the future. A counter argument is that bitcoin power consumption can be justified by using clean energy i.e. generated from water, wind, sun etc.

Not the investors I Know they were all part of a green energy movement with less air pollution. A lot of charging station across the country are solar powered.

I think Bitcoin creates corresponding value with the energy it consumes, and the situation is far less serious than what the opponents say. Bitcoin will become a powerful force, and the energy used will be more environmentally friendly. The reliable economic incentives of the Bitcoin network will help the economy of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind energy. Moreover, the consumption of energy is not the same as the release of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, and Bitcoin has very little carbon emissions.

Regardless of the energy source the point is its an unnecessary use of energy. There are cryptos that accomplish the same function with almost no power consumption.   

[fara_buduk]

bitcoin's energy consumption, and the resulting carbon emissions, will only go in one direction, namely increasing, "electricity consumption and now there are some who have started using environmentally friendly energy to reduce electricity costs. It's just that this is still in the planning stage and is being pioneered by companies which incidentally is engaged in this sector while individual mining may only use some of this solar energy due to the difficulty in making adequate and stable environmentally friendly energy with the tools/computers used, as well as the funds

[serjent05]

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

No, I think Bitcoin miners will be the ones to develop into eco-friendly machines.  You are forgetting something here I guess.  Technology develops thus looking back on how people mine bitcoin from CPU to ASIC and from high energy-consuming ASIC to more powerful but more energy-efficient machine.  Possibly we can see mining farms being powered by renewable energy such as solar, windmill, and hydro plants which actually available in the energy industry.

[milewilda]

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

No, I think Bitcoin miners will be the ones to develop into eco-friendly machines.  You are forgetting something here I guess.  Technology develops thus looking back on how people mine bitcoin from CPU to ASIC and from high energy-consuming ASIC to more powerful but more energy-efficient machine.  Possibly we can see mining farms being powered by renewable energy such as solar, windmill, and hydro plants which actually available in the energy industry.

We would really be heading there if this issue would continue to be raised in upcoming years towards bitcoin mining then it would really finding out some solution about it and its true that techonology does progress and we wont know on what would be invented next and this might be already get resolved
with those environmental issues but actually i dont see it to be that major and they are the only ones who do really make it a big deal
but basing off with the energy been used and with the supply where i can see to be sufficient.

[jjdub7]

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

I personally do not think that investors' interest in Bitcoin will decrease for such reasons. Bitcoin is a major driving force in the crypto market and can not remain without interest from investors.

And yet, more and more Bitcoin mining farms are turning to renewable energy sources, which could soon lead to a completely "green" Bitcoin mining and that won't be a problem then.

[AicecreaME]

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

I don't think energy consumption will be the downfall of bitcoin, but it surely will affect bitcoin if from time to time there will be mining sites that need to close down due to high electricity consumption.

Bitcoin really consumes a lot of electricity in mining which was the usual issue during the past months already. There was even a news that a mining site related to bitcoin was forced to close down because China's government has been reserving their power consumption. Maybe this scenario will make the mining corporations to slowly switch from being eco-friendly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think bitcoin consumes still lesser energy compared to big private mining corporations and companies. IMO it shouldn't be a big issue. Although I really do hope that mining becomes more environmental friendly since I'm also aware of the repercussions it may cause to the overall state of our planet.

[CryptoStar19]

The solution to the high energy consumption of bitcoin mining will more likely involve an increase in the proportion of this energy coming from renewable sources rather than a need to move to a different "more eco-friendly" alternative to bitcoin.

[Woodie]

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

This gasoline to electric powered isn't fully realised   so I wouldn't say it's a complete success, but I get were you going in relation to bitcoin and we need to ask ourselves critically how to do away with pollution and reducing carbon emissions .

I honestly think making bitcoin great will be based on this problem solving and no one will throw shade like Elon did which was the truth and this triggered a huge fall from ~$50k to ~$30k.  Going forward we need ecofriendly ways of mining, I just hope this doesn't disrupt the network.

[Abiky]

People moved to electric cars to save GAS/Patrol spending not to save the environment. Electric cars run on electricity and this electricity is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels.
PoW is power greedy and I don't think it will be replaced by any other consensus algo in the future. A counter argument is that bitcoin power consumption can be justified by using clean energy i.e. generated from water, wind, sun etc.

That's certainly true, mate. There's basically no such thing as "environmentally-friendly". One way or another, fossil fuels are used, harming the environment as we know it. Bitcoin's energy consumption may seem high to many, but it's in fact low when compared to the amount of energy consumed by traditional financial institutions (aka banks). The pioneer cryptocurrency can go green, if miners decide to run their equipment on solar or wind energy. Saying that Bitcoin is harmful to the environment is only a failed attempt to spread FUD from mainstream media, banks, and wealthy people alike. No matter the criticism, Bitcoin will thrive because of its decentralized and censorship-resistant design. I don't think Bitcoin will switch to PoS in the future, because the consensus algorithm is not as secure as PoW is.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that PoW ain't going anywhere. High or low energy consumption won't make a difference since it's used to help secure the Blockchain. ASIC mining hardware will certainly improve over time as chips become more energy efficient than ever. As long as Bitcoin remains decentralized and censorship-resistant, nothing else matters. I'd envision a future where most altcoins will switch to PoS, while Bitcoin remains with the classic "Nakamoto Consensus". There are far more important things to focus on besides Bitcoin's energy consumption. Just my thoughts

[kayiboyu]

It doesn't look like we will see such thing in the future. Bitcoin mining is getting greener as time goes on. At some point, there will be no dependency on fossil fuels and electricity I believe.

[BADecker]

Will energy consumption be Bitcoins downfall ?


Of course not. If it comes to it, Bitcoin folks will simply build their own power plants. Then they will make money off selling electricity as well... besides Bitcoin.

[Gatorelf]

People moved to electric cars to save GAS/Patrol spending not to save the environment. Electric cars run on electricity and this electricity is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels.
PoW is power greedy and I don't think it will be replaced by any other consensus algo in the future. A counter argument is that bitcoin power consumption can be justified by using clean energy i.e. generated from water, wind, sun etc.

That's certainly true, mate. There's basically no such thing as "environmentally-friendly". One way or another, fossil fuels are used, harming the environment as we know it. Bitcoin's energy consumption may seem high to many, but it's in fact low when compared to the amount of energy consumed by traditional financial institutions (aka banks). The pioneer cryptocurrency can go green, if miners decide to run their equipment on solar or wind energy. Saying that Bitcoin is harmful to the environment is only a failed attempt to spread FUD from mainstream media, banks, and wealthy people alike. No matter the criticism, Bitcoin will thrive because of its decentralized and censorship-resistant design. I don't think Bitcoin will switch to PoS in the future, because the consensus algorithm is not as secure as PoW is.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that PoW ain't going anywhere. High or low energy consumption won't make a difference since it's used to help secure the Blockchain. ASIC mining hardware will certainly improve over time as chips become more energy efficient than ever. As long as Bitcoin remains decentralized and censorship-resistant, nothing else matters. I'd envision a future where most altcoins will switch to PoS, while Bitcoin remains with the classic "Nakamoto Consensus". There are far more important things to focus on besides Bitcoin's energy consumption. Just my thoughts

the argument isn't so much as "where" the energy comes from, its that fact that it uses a great deal for computations.

Considering this is still an evolving market and seems that POW has the advantage of being more secure, what happens when exchanges start offering insured accounts up to x amount just like a bank.  I believe Coinbase already has some type of account guaranty against unauthorized use. Its interesting of the 10 plus accounts I had the last five years with 50 plus different crypto's I never had an unauthorized transaction.  However my Visa card has been compromised no less than five times

Just thinking of the future and how things evolve, I was told BTC could never go to POS which I thought was the way.     

   

[TangentC]

People moved to electric cars to save GAS/Patrol spending not to save the environment. Electric cars run on electricity and this electricity is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels.
PoW is power greedy and I don't think it will be replaced by any other consensus algo in the future. A counter argument is that bitcoin power consumption can be justified by using clean energy i.e. generated from water, wind, sun etc.

That's certainly true, mate. There's basically no such thing as "environmentally-friendly". One way or another, fossil fuels are used, harming the environment as we know it. Bitcoin's energy consumption may seem high to many, but it's in fact low when compared to the amount of energy consumed by traditional financial institutions (aka banks). The pioneer cryptocurrency can go green, if miners decide to run their equipment on solar or wind energy. Saying that Bitcoin is harmful to the environment is only a failed attempt to spread FUD from mainstream media, banks, and wealthy people alike. No matter the criticism, Bitcoin will thrive because of its decentralized and censorship-resistant design. I don't think Bitcoin will switch to PoS in the future, because the consensus algorithm is not as secure as PoW is.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that PoW ain't going anywhere. High or low energy consumption won't make a difference since it's used to help secure the Blockchain. ASIC mining hardware will certainly improve over time as chips become more energy efficient than ever. As long as Bitcoin remains decentralized and censorship-resistant, nothing else matters. I'd envision a future where most altcoins will switch to PoS, while Bitcoin remains with the classic "Nakamoto Consensus". There are far more important things to focus on besides Bitcoin's energy consumption. Just my thoughts

the argument isn't so much as "where" the energy comes from, its that fact that it uses a great deal for computations.

Considering this is still an evolving market and seems that POW has the advantage of being more secure, what happens when exchanges start offering insured accounts up to x amount just like a bank.  I believe Coinbase already has some type of account guaranty against unauthorized use. Its interesting of the 10 plus accounts I had the last five years with 50 plus different crypto's I never had an unauthorized transaction.  However my Visa card has been compromised no less than five times

Just thinking of the future and how things evolve, I was told BTC could never go to POS which I thought was the way.      
 

That is an often misspoken fallacy, PoW is not more secure than PoS,
Both are secure or insecure depending on 1 specific condition , the Majority.

Many PoW Coins have suffered 51% attacks,
Many PoS  Coins have suffered 51% attacks.

Some PoW coin have never suffered a 51% attack.
Some PoS  coin have never suffered a 51% attack.

The algorithms themselves will not secure a coin,
all that secure PoW is the majority of Pooled Hashrate,  
all that secure PoS is the majority of staking coins.

So the good will of the majority is the answer for both.

In Bitcoin Case as long as the top 4 pool operators don't collude, bitcoin is safe,
but if the top 4 pool operators ever do collude, 51% attack in bitcoin is unstoppable.
Kind of makes you wonder why people think bitcoin is so secure, when only 4 guys could totally decimate it in a day.  

In Cardano Case, they have over 2500 PoS pools, and they limit the max % one pool can dominate by code design.
So Cardano PoS has more protection from colluding mining pool operators than Bitcoin PoW.  
Because the collusion would take a much greater majority of operators than 4 like BTC.


FYI:
In Bitcoin PoW history ,
the Majority Rewrote 6 hours of bitcoin blocks in 2013, proving the majority will move the PoW chain however they deem fit.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448

The economic damage was significant, but fairly small; the only monetary losses that have been reported are the $26,000 USD worth of mining block rewards from the 24 mined blocks of 25 BTC that are now forever lost in the now abandoned chain, as well as a $10,000 double spend against OKPay.

A Doublespend has occurred on the Bitcoin PoW network.  

No Doublespends have ever occurred on the Cardano PoS network.  

From the above, PoW does not seem all that secure.  

[Gatorelf]

People moved to electric cars to save GAS/Patrol spending not to save the environment. Electric cars run on electricity and this electricity is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels.
PoW is power greedy and I don't think it will be replaced by any other consensus algo in the future. A counter argument is that bitcoin power consumption can be justified by using clean energy i.e. generated from water, wind, sun etc.

That's certainly true, mate. There's basically no such thing as "environmentally-friendly". One way or another, fossil fuels are used, harming the environment as we know it. Bitcoin's energy consumption may seem high to many, but it's in fact low when compared to the amount of energy consumed by traditional financial institutions (aka banks). The pioneer cryptocurrency can go green, if miners decide to run their equipment on solar or wind energy. Saying that Bitcoin is harmful to the environment is only a failed attempt to spread FUD from mainstream media, banks, and wealthy people alike. No matter the criticism, Bitcoin will thrive because of its decentralized and censorship-resistant design. I don't think Bitcoin will switch to PoS in the future, because the consensus algorithm is not as secure as PoW is.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that PoW ain't going anywhere. High or low energy consumption won't make a difference since it's used to help secure the Blockchain. ASIC mining hardware will certainly improve over time as chips become more energy efficient than ever. As long as Bitcoin remains decentralized and censorship-resistant, nothing else matters. I'd envision a future where most altcoins will switch to PoS, while Bitcoin remains with the classic "Nakamoto Consensus". There are far more important things to focus on besides Bitcoin's energy consumption. Just my thoughts

the argument isn't so much as "where" the energy comes from, its that fact that it uses a great deal for computations.

Considering this is still an evolving market and seems that POW has the advantage of being more secure, what happens when exchanges start offering insured accounts up to x amount just like a bank.  I believe Coinbase already has some type of account guaranty against unauthorized use. Its interesting of the 10 plus accounts I had the last five years with 50 plus different crypto's I never had an unauthorized transaction.  However my Visa card has been compromised no less than five times

Just thinking of the future and how things evolve, I was told BTC could never go to POS which I thought was the way.      
 

That is an often misspoken fallacy, PoW is not more secure than PoS,
Both are secure or insecure depending on 1 specific condition , the Majority.

Many PoW Coins have suffered 51% attacks,
Many PoS  Coins have suffered 51% attacks.

Some PoW coin have never suffered a 51% attack.
Some PoS  coin have never suffered a 51% attack.

The algorithms themselves will not secure a coin,
all that secure PoW is the majority of Pooled Hashrate,  
all that secure PoS is the majority of staking coins.

So the good will of the majority is the answer for both.

In Bitcoin Case as long as the top 4 pool operators don't collude, bitcoin is safe,
but if the top 4 pool operators ever do collude, 51% attack in bitcoin is unstoppable.
Kind of makes you wonder why people think bitcoin is so secure, when only 4 guys could totally decimate it in a day.  

In Cardano Case, they have over 2500 PoS pools, and they limit the max % one pool can dominate by code design.
So Cardano PoS has more protection from colluding mining pool operators than Bitcoin PoW.  
Because the collusion would take a much greater majority of operators than 4 like BTC.


FYI:
In Bitcoin PoW history ,
the Majority Rewrote 6 hours of bitcoin blocks in 2013, proving the majority will move the PoW chain however they deem fit.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-network-shaken-by-blockchain-fork-1363144448

The economic damage was significant, but fairly small; the only monetary losses that have been reported are the $26,000 USD worth of mining block rewards from the 24 mined blocks of 25 BTC that are now forever lost in the now abandoned chain, as well as a $10,000 double spend against OKPay.

A Doublespend has occurred on the Bitcoin PoW network.  

No Doublespends have ever occurred on the Cardano PoS network.  

From the above, PoW does not seem all that secure.  

great answer, security seemed to be the dominating augment for the use of BTC vs any other Alt