Economists say each BTC transaction causes 272g of waste

[JollyGood]

Here is an interesting article from The Guardian UK: Waste from one bitcoin transaction ‘like binning two iPhones’. Whereas the carbon footprint issue has been debated in the forum this article puts a different spin on the impact of mining.

According to the article, the Bitcoin network processed 112.5m transactions meaning that each individual transaction “equates to at least 272g of e-waste" which is the equivalent of two mini iPhone 12 handsets because ASIC miners have a limited shelf life of just 1.29 years. If the calculations are true, those are mind-boggling numbers.

Will statistics such as these (though debatable) affect the way investors continue to invest in Bitcoin and crypto in general?


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/17/waste-from-one-bitcoin-transaction-like-binning-two-iphones

[1715371977]

1715371977

[1715371977]

1715371977

[1715371977]

1715371977

[The Cryptovator]

Will statistics such as these (though debatable) affect the way investors continue to invest in Bitcoin and crypto in general?

No. I don't think so. I am wondering why the calculation is too tight when it's come for Bitcoin. Are wasting and pollution only coming from Bitcoin? There are many sectors still alive that are generating a lot of wastage. Is all this business going to stop? If not, then Bitcoin investors shouldn't stop as well from investing in Bitcoin. And I don't think Bitcoin investors are thinking about wastage before investing in Bitcoin. Same as when you are buying a company share you don't consider how much waste is generating from this industry.

[Lucius]

Opponents of Bitcoin seem to have begun to change the narrative by which they will continue to try to discredit what they do not like. The OP cited some parts of the article, but I missed one comparison that literally shows how pointless it is to show BTC transactions in such a bad world - compared to other transactions.

In 2020 the bitcoin network processed 112.5m transactions (compared with 539bn processed by traditional payment service providers in 2019), according to the economists, meaning that each individual transaction “equates to at least 272g of e-waste”. That’s the weight of two iPhone 12 minis.

It means hundreds of billions of transactions versus just over 100 million when it comes to BTC - so I would ask how much of that is a waste if I were to express it in the iPhone 12 minis?

Furthermore, everyone remembers comparing the energy consumption of BTC mining with the consumption of a country like Ireland, the Czech Republic or maybe Argentina, so that now great geniuses will discover a new way to show how Bitcoin will bury the country with garbage.

“As a result, we estimate that the whole bitcoin network currently cycles through 30.7 metric kilotons of equipment per year. This number is comparable to the amount of small IT and telecommunication equipment waste produced by a country like the Netherlands.”

Should it be mentioned that the author of the article finally looks at some altcoins as alternatives to Bitcoin and states that the only salvation is to implement "proof of stake".

[Mbitr]

It would be very interesting to be able to read the full paper rather than just the abstract.
There may well be some/ lot of bias against Bitcoin , especially as one of the Authors is an employee of - De Nederlandsche Bank !!

What factors and parameters were used ?
Any members have free access to the paper ?



On a personal level - one very good friend was interested in Bitcoin , but has decided to go very anti bitcoin due to supposed environmental issues . I’ve tried to have a gentle discussion , but he is adamant it’s bad for the environment and we’re all killing the planet blah blah etc etc ! We have agreed to disagree 

[stompix]

In 2020 the bitcoin network processed 112.5m transactions (compared with 539bn processed by traditional payment service providers in 2019), according to the economists, meaning that each individual transaction “equates to at least 272g of e-waste”. That’s the weight of two iPhone 12 minis.

It means hundreds of billions of transactions versus just over 100 million when it comes to BTC - so I would ask how much of that is a waste if I were to express it in the iPhone 12 minis?

Well, if we keep the ratio it couldn't even work as it would require 14 times the world electricity if they would have the same power requirements per transaction. If bitcoin would have stayed at 3k so would have consumption, if it goes to 300k by December assuming we will have enough Asics to plug in it will probably consume more than the entire banking sector in the world. Then, the halvings will do their jobs but till then

At the same time, it's understandable for some to look at those numbers and wonder why this..
There are 10 million people in the Czech Republic who do on average 6 million payments daily, go to work, play games, have sex, ride the metro, bake, have sex, print, and cook, visits malls and so on and so on,....and yet all those people with all their activity will consume less energy than the 2 million Asics securing bitcoins' network. Of course, it would look weird to anyone, and a lot will obviously ask, can't this be done in another way?

Well, not that I'm aware of any solution that wouldn't be just as problematic.
Right now the chip and gear shortage, rising energy costing, and the situation in China has put a hold on the increased consumption, I doubt we will see any spike unless the price goes nuts so long-term the problem will be somewhat solved.

Anyhow, the focus should not be on comparing consumption, but on what this consumption achieves differently than others.

If the calculations are true, those are mind-boggling numbers.

You have $40 million a day in rewards going to miners, of course, the numbers would be insane, even assuming the most efficient gear on the market right now you would need about 17 000 tons of those. That's about 100 million iPhones mini.

Will statistics such as these (though debatable) affect the way investors continue to invest in Bitcoin and crypto in general?

Probably it will stop something between 0.004 or 0.007 of them!

[Ucy]

I wonder where the ASICs are taken to after they are nolonger useful for mining Bitcoin? Are they thrown away, or are the parts used for something else?
I always believe the miners should be multi purposes.. . When they are nolonger useful for mining Bitcoin they can be used for something else or maybe the parts could be used for making other useful things. Things like that are  better when they have multiple uses.
Guess we could blame on lack of better tech that's energy efficient, multi-purpose, portable, less power hungry, last long and do more work with less hardware.

[DaveF]

Dave looks over at a pair of miners in his server room that are 3+ 4+ years old [1st batch of S9] so 1.29 years I don't think so.

Also, there are many e-waste recycling facilities so it's not like the miners are just scrapped. They can be, just like you can put your old PC in the garbage bin on trash day.
Or I don't know, sell it to people who want to play with old miners etc.

I am sure some do wind up as landfill, but not nearly all of them will.

-Dave

[avikz]

Will statistics such as these (though debatable) affect the way investors continue to invest in Bitcoin and crypto in general?

It's a never ending debate. Haters gonna hate! But does that make bitcoin look bad? Ask those people who are able to see financial freedom because of bitcoin. Ask those people who have become millionaires because of bitcoin and living their dream life. On the other hand, you will also find those people who have lost money from bitcoin investment because they have followed the fomo curve. So all types of people are in there, who were benefitted and who were not!

Pow is an energy intensive algorithm and unfortunately there is no way to change it to POS. Even if there's a way, who's gonna execute it? I don't think such statistics hold the power to bring down the image/charm of bitcoin.

[20kevin20]

POS devices brought by banks have no use besides serving as a method of payment either, and at some point they will be discarded. Why are we not talking about this?

The recent narrative mainstream media is trying to push forward is quite stupid. I mean, it's almost always been ever since they (and authorities) started to attempt to push people away from crypto.

Same goes for crypto ATMs. They serve as a way of withdrawing and/or depositing cash, and that is their only purpose. And I'm sure they're gonna be much more of a waste when discarded than BTC miners will be. Moreover, Bitcoin will work even without today's ASICs because it's decentralized. Banks will always need a running central power to make all the POS devices and ATMs of any utility.

[JollyGood]

I wonder where the ASICs are taken to after they are nolonger useful for mining Bitcoin? Are they thrown away, or are the parts used for something else?
I always believe the miners should be multi purposes.. . When they are nolonger useful for mining Bitcoin they can be used for something else or maybe the parts could be used for making other useful things. Things like that are  better when they have multiple uses.
Guess we could blame on lack of better tech that's energy efficient, multi-purpose, portable, less power hungry, last long and do more work with less hardware.

Some would end up being recycled for parts but their usage is limited to mining therefore have no other real value except to be dismantled and used for parts. It is a shame that the miner manufacturing companies have kept the devices for single purpose use only.

Dave looks over at a pair of miners in his server room that are 3+ 4+ years old [1st batch of S9] so 1.29 years I don't think so.

Also, there are many e-waste recycling facilities so it's not like the miners are just scrapped. They can be, just like you can put your old PC in the garbage bin on trash day.
Or I don't know, sell it to people who want to play with old miners etc.

I am sure some do wind up as landfill, but not nearly all of them will.

-Dave

The 1.29 years quoted in the article does seem hard to believe and not only that there is a recycling element you referred to that was not factored in the article either. I have never dumped an old PC in the bin before and have no intention of doing so in future because when electrical parts are concerned there is always scope to try to make some sort of recycling attempt. I agree, not of all miners end up in a landfill site.

Will statistics such as these (though debatable) affect the way investors continue to invest in Bitcoin and crypto in general?

It's a never ending debate. Haters gonna hate! But does that make bitcoin look bad? Ask those people who are able to see financial freedom because of bitcoin. Ask those people who have become millionaires because of bitcoin and living their dream life. On the other hand, you will also find those people who have lost money from bitcoin investment because they have followed the fomo curve. So all types of people are in there, who were benefitted and who were not!

Pow is an energy intensive algorithm and unfortunately there is no way to change it to POS. Even if there's a way, who's gonna execute it? I don't think such statistics hold the power to bring down the image/charm of bitcoin.

This particular article from The Guardian does not seem to have a feel of Bitcoin haters promoting hate, it never alluded to the ceasing of Bitcoin or crypto mining operations. As for those that became millionaires from Bitcoin, I agree with what you implied - they and most people would probably rather get rich than worry about the latest trends regarding the alleged environmental impact.

[Fortify]

Here is an interesting article from The Guardian UK: Waste from one bitcoin transaction ‘like binning two iPhones’. Whereas the carbon footprint issue has been debated in the forum this article puts a different spin on the impact of mining.

According to the article, the Bitcoin network processed 112.5m transactions meaning that each individual transaction “equates to at least 272g of e-waste" which is the equivalent of two mini iPhone 12 handsets because ASIC miners have a limited shelf life of just 1.29 years. If the calculations are true, those are mind-boggling numbers.

Will statistics such as these (though debatable) affect the way investors continue to invest in Bitcoin and crypto in general?


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/sep/17/waste-from-one-bitcoin-transaction-like-binning-two-iphones

One thing that the winning cryptocurrency will have to be is super efficient. The blockchain may just be the first step towards the right model, but it has definitely proven that a cashless society that is independent from banks is possible. Bitcoin has been able to bring down the fees per transaction substantially with segwit and that was a major boost when comparing it to historical costs - it is now competitive again. Speed is super important as well for it to be used in day to day transactions, unfortunately the low cap of 21 million has already stunted the long term potential of this currency but there is still a lot of useful experimenting that can go on with it. Unless the developers confront energy usage and are able to beat existing payment networks on that, it might struggle to get future governmental support.

[eaLiTy]

Here is an interesting article from The Guardian UK: Waste from one bitcoin transaction ‘like binning two iPhones’. Whereas the carbon footprint issue has been debated in the forum this article puts a different spin on the impact of mining.

According to the article, the Bitcoin network processed 112.5m transactions meaning that each individual transaction “equates to at least 272g of e-waste" which is the equivalent of two mini iPhone 12 handsets because ASIC miners have a limited shelf life of just 1.29 years. If the calculations are true, those are mind-boggling numbers.

I read the article and there is a twist in the comparison as the article claim that the entire BTCitcoin network cycles through 30.7 metric kilotons of equipment which is equivalent to the equipment waste in one sector produced by Netherlands, so what will be the total wastage in each and every sector  , just think about the global waste that is produced and they just want to compare them with the waste an entire BTCitcoin network produces.  

We are seeing all these excuses for a long time now, Elon Musk who is producing electric cars is complaining about the electric wastage while mining BTCitcoin and now a comparison of electronic wastage for the entire network with a country. What kind of comparison is that, it is like comparing apples to oranges and similarity is that it is round in shape. What about the millions of mobile phones that are obsolete in the past 10 years, if they could compare just the mobile electronic waste with the wastage of ASIC machines produced then that would be a good comparison. The binning rate would be 20:1  .

 

[dothebeats]

It's amazing how such institutions will come up with a different narrative every time their previous spin-offs were discredited by facts and facts alone. We're looking at data and study made by financial institutions that are trying to bring down bitcoin and crypto, and of course, the bias will always shift in their favor.

I'd love to know how would they equate in iPhone 12 minis the waste produced by other industries that have far too low of an impact in the economy, or those sectors that add nothing of value to society yet they cannot do shit about because they have vested interests on it.

[pinggoki]

Unless some maths are shown within the article where they showed how they came up with such an absurd amount of e-waste, I wouldn't believe it blindly. There has been a history of these people especially those connected with the corporate and government hating on and cryptocurrencies in general so this feels yet again like another black propaganda directed towards bitcoin so environmentalists would tag along with this hate. What I want to hear from them is how the amount of e-waste bitcoin makes compare to the amount of pollution the use of non-renewable resources produces over time.

It's amazing how such institutions will come up with a different narrative every time their previous spin-offs were discredited by facts and facts alone. We're looking at data and study made by financial institutions that are trying to bring down bitcoin and crypto, and of course, the bias will always shift in their favor.

I'd love to know how would they equate in iPhone 12 minis the waste produced by other industries that have far too low of an impact in the economy, or those sectors that add nothing of value to society yet they cannot do shit about because they have vested interests on it.

These institutions will do whatever they can in their power to topple the legacy bitcoin is trying to make right now and keep fiat and the use of non-renewable resources as active as possible. After all this is where they get their money from so it comes to no surprise that these people will do whatever they could do to keep their primary source of power and income alive. Then again they'd realize that their efforts will be rendered useless.

[JollyGood]

You are right, non-crypto related financial transactions run at well over 500 billion per annum and to my knowledge no real economic study has been carried out to ascertain the waste produced by that sector but if anybody can provide a link it will be appreciated because figures can be compared with what has been written about Bitcoin.

I do not see the article in The Guardian as being anti-Bitcoin, I think the author just wanted to get the report by economists mentioned. As you said when you have 539 billion transactions versus 112.5 million then it would defeat the object of trying to show Bitcoin in a negative light which is why I think the author intended no malice.

Opponents of Bitcoin seem to have begun to change the narrative by which they will continue to try to discredit what they do not like. The OP cited some parts of the article, but I missed one comparison that literally shows how pointless it is to show BTC transactions in such a bad world - compared to other transactions.

In 2020 the bitcoin network processed 112.5m transactions (compared with 539bn processed by traditional payment service providers in 2019), according to the economists, meaning that each individual transaction “equates to at least 272g of e-waste”. That’s the weight of two iPhone 12 minis.

It means hundreds of billions of transactions versus just over 100 million when it comes to BTC - so I would ask how much of that is a waste if I were to express it in the iPhone 12 minis?

Furthermore, everyone remembers comparing the energy consumption of BTC mining with the consumption of a country like Ireland, the Czech Republic or maybe Argentina, so that now great geniuses will discover a new way to show how Bitcoin will bury the country with garbage.

“As a result, we estimate that the whole bitcoin network currently cycles through 30.7 metric kilotons of equipment per year. This number is comparable to the amount of small IT and telecommunication equipment waste produced by a country like the Netherlands.”

Should it be mentioned that the author of the article finally looks at some altcoins as alternatives to Bitcoin and states that the only salvation is to implement "proof of stake".

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin is still contributing only a tiny fraction of global e-waste (which is 50 million tons per year). Yes, it's bad that Bitcoin does that but the world can afford it. In the future there will be better technologies for recycling old electronics automatically, so it will be less of a problem. And maybe ASICs will hit a performance limit and will have much longer lifespans.

[DaveF]

Using Bitman / Cannan as my 2 references with the newer miners with the built in power supplies.
75% or more of the weight is aluminum for the heatsinks and case. Which is totally and easily recyclable.
15% to 20% is the power supply and some steel which are also recyclable in just about any part of the world.

The rest? The circuit boards and chips and other stuff. Yes, it takes a bit more to recycle it, but it's done all over the world every day.

-Dave

[FinneysTrueVision]

I hate when they frame it as waste per transaction. If you interpret it literally then you would think your electricity bill would be hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just from transacting but that is not at all how Bitcoin works. The amount of electricity they are talking about is not used for making transactions, it is used to keep the network secure. If you see it that way then you might understand why this electricity usage is necessary.

[ranochigo]

Using Bitman / Cannan as my 2 references with the newer miners with the built in power supplies.
75% or more of the weight is aluminum for the heatsinks and case. Which is totally and easily recyclable.
15% to 20% is the power supply and some steel which are also recyclable in just about any part of the world.

The rest? The circuit boards and chips and other stuff. Yes, it takes a bit more to recycle it, but it's done all over the world every day.

Just because it can be recycled doesn't mean that it would be. Recycling metal is quite a tedious task and many a times, it makes far more sense economically to just throw them to a landfill and mine for new material than trying to waste money and recycle them. E-waste is quite a prominent issue because parts of it are either hard to recycle or expensive to do so, due to the miscellaneous costs incurred in the process as well. Recycling doesn't really do all that much, it doesn't offset the environmental impact from mining it in the first place and incurs even more through the process of recycling it.

It's quite absurd that people are not acknowledging the fact that these argument actually have some substance and makes sense. Instead, they are dismissing it as a "propaganda" or fake news and instead shift their argument towards other activities which generate far more utility. Come on, it is just a Bitcoin cult defending the coin for the sake of doing so .

[DapanasFruit]

Someone is mentioning here a bias against Bitcoin and I can sense that this is really true. I mean...these BTC haters are focusing on Bitcoin because it is a single entity unlike other industries which are scattered like the banking and other financial institutions...they are all consuming power and they are all producing wastes in so many wastes. Heck, as long as one is doing business and is breathing we are all making wastes. I am expecting that next time we can hear another argument against Bitcoin. Instead of hiding the bias in technical terms and explanation, why not just say that they don't like Bitcoin and does not want to do anything with it? Nobody is forcing them or campaigning for them to be a part of us, anyway.