ㅤ

[Symmetrick]

ㅤ

[Charles-Tim]

When I read the CoinShares report like 2 weeks ago, I brought it up on this forum

The bitcoin mining network, energy and carbon impact

All I concluded at the time was that critics and many people are having wrong opinions that Bitcoin is significantly contributing to global warming. Even if there is no Bitcoin, what is happening recently like thawing of permafrost and melting of coastal region will still be happening as a result of human activities that is not Bitcoin related. What should be focused on that scientists are talking about is not focused on which is how greenhouse gasses release to the environment can be reduced to minimal.

I also like the report because it mentions that not all electricity are not clean, some energy are from renewable and clean sources. And yet the electricity used are paid for in a way bitcoin can produce more energy and help economy rather than thinking bitcoin consumes energy. It consumes and pay for more to be generated.

[hatshepsut93]

How can Bitcoin's share of emissions can be higher than its share of energy consumption if energy production is just a part of global emissions?

I wouldn't say that Bitcoin mining is exactly harmless for environment, but there's nothing about it inherently harmful, unlike with agriculture or construction - it's just a problem that electricity is still quite dirty, but this is changing quite fast.

[TheBeardedBaby]

Nothing to worry about, soon when project like ITER TOKAMAK hit the market, the power consumption will no longer be a problem.
We are on a edge of change, on almost every aspect of life, so becoming a Type I civilization (based on Kardashev scale) probably won't take that logs as previously thought.

In 10 years, nuclear fusion reactors will start to be more wide spread and the concurrence between the different companies will bring the price even more down.

So Bitcoin will bloom for sure All this now it's just a temporary noise

[Flexystar]

If bitcoin mining is so much trouble then imagine what will happen when STARLINK will be fully operational. I mean the whole hundreds of satellites will be pointing out laser beams in the earth’s atmosphere heating it up and creating buzz in the ionospheric layer.

I’m not sure if they have visioned this or not but that’s gonna be one of the topic of discussion.

My question is, how come one technology which is just came to the matured stage of its advancement is hampering the environment?

Cars and trucks running since hundred years, industries are at its peak. I’m not sure what’s wrong with small stuff like mining?

[Welsh]

The thing is, with all the claims I've seen I've never seen any statistics which could actually be reliable. They're all using assumed data, which when you consider null hypothesis, isn't valid. So, for me to be convinced that Bitcoin mining is a problem, more so to the environment when you compare the other fossil fueled industries, that's when I'll take notice, and propose change. However, that has yet to be proven.

The thing is, I would likely acknowledge that Bitcoin is using a lot of power, after all Proof Of Work is designed that way, however that assumption is meaningless until I actually have data to back it up, without the data, and research which has been conducted properly its hard to justify change when you don't know all of the facts.

I will still advocate that we should be looking to be as clean as possible when mining, however I can't state how urgent or even how important this is, since I don't have the data neither does anyone else. I'm pretty certain gathering accurate data for this would be nearly impossible. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking to make a change, but its annoying to see Bitcoin get this reputation, when I can almost guarantee there was other general consumer products that everyone uses everyday, which are both worse in power consumption, and probably could be improved upon.

Also, CoinShares research isn't exactly that reliable, since they're estimating. Yet, as we know with something as unknown, and complex as this issue, the accuracy of such as estimate might well be painting a completely different picture at each end of the allowable range. Also, CoinShare's research could be considered somewhat bias due to the their involvement with Cryptocurrency.

I'd like to see some proper research conducted from a neutral researcher, with as much transparency as possible. Although, I'm afraid it still won't be enough, because it'll end up being estimates rather than actual data we can rely on.

The only argument I have for Bitcoin miners, and improving their energy consumption is; they will somewhat rely on the government improving their energy reserves, since most will be drawing off state assets, or it's within their best interests to reduce the cost of electricity so they profit more. Whereas, other industries that might actually not be as feasible or beneficial.

[dkbit98]

Most of environmental propaganda we see on mainstream media, including Bitcoin mining influence is a pure fiction, but I guess you can pump anything if you give it enough attention.
You pay few journalists and corrupt scientist who hate bitcoin and you will get perfect mixture that fits into modern green narrative agenda for brave new world.
Imagine something like Bitcoin mining that uses only 0.05% of the total energy consumption getting so much attention and bad press, it means they really don't like it, and it has nothing to do with environment.

[Sayeds56]

How can Bitcoin's share of emissions can be higher than its share of energy consumption if energy production is just a part of global emissions?

I wouldn't say that Bitcoin mining is exactly harmless for environment, but there's nothing about it inherently harmful, unlike with agriculture or construction - it's just a problem that electricity is still quite dirty, but this is changing quite fast.

Well said. The real issue is the use of  fossil fuel to produce electricity not the mining of Bitcoin but as you said  it is changing quite fast in many countries not only Industries are switching to green energy  but also people are using Solar panels  for their domestic use and it substantially reduces energy bill. I also got  solar panels installed on my roof top of my house and it really helps a lot. I am also thinking to use my solar panels for mining purpose.

[OcTradism]

Bitcoin Mining Council, Q4 survey confirms sustainable power mix and technological efficiency

According to that report, in Q4 2021 the proportion of sustainable power electricity in Bitcoin mining is 55.8% which is 1% increase from Q3 2021. That makes Bitcoin mining industry is one of the most sustainable industries over the world.

Harm to environment, I agree but there is no perfect thing and I disagree to say Bitcoin brings worst effects to environment. It is much better than many industries.

[franky1]

funny thing is

where you live determines what electric you get.
you cant just phone up your utility company and say, "ill take clean electric today"
you physically need to move to a neighbourhood near a renewable powerplant to be in range to receive renewable electric.

since 2014 thats exactly what majority of asic farms done. set up their warehouses in those area's, on purpose
residential home hobby miners are stuck with what their neighbourhood offers.

mining farms are not power plants, mining farms do not produce the power. so its kind of a silly thing for influencers to shout out "bitcoin mining neds to switch"

the actual wording should be POWER COMPANIES need to switch

other things are.. if a asic farm is in a neighbourhood connected to hydro.. its 100%
if a asic farm is in a neighbourhood connected to fossil.. its 0%

its kinda one of the other.

however they did not do any detailed research of what neighbourhood asic farms are in. instead they looked at the tally of which state/country overall % of sustainable clean energy (gas is included along with renewables) to come to the state/country/world wide average of 56%

yet reality is if they actually mapped out all asic farms and then looked at the closest power plant. the numbers would be more higher in the renewable area

EG. im in the UK. i live near nuclear.. but if i wanted hydro instead. i cant just call up my utility company and switch. instead i have to move to either wales or scotland as they are the only two area's with all the massive hydro power stations (none in england) that have capacity to cover a whole town/city

[Kakmakr]

I have been saying this for years....

When you compare the energy use of other payment systems with Bitcoin, you have to take into consideration that these payment systems are backed by more than just the energy used to power the mainframe or server that runs that payment software.

A company like VISA / Mastercard / Banks etc... have 1000's of people working in Offices that use energy. (Indirect energy usage) These people drive to work and they sit in air-conditioned Offices with computers and Servers that are running most of the day.

Those payment systems are dependent on hardware that use energy ...examples : ATMs / Card machines / Printers ...etc... and those coins and paper/plastic money needs energy to produce it. 

[cabron]

But why is it that somehow Elon dictates what miners have to do?
The report was that more miners are now using renewable energy while mining BTC. While they do this, it means they have less cost in electricity which there is no hard pressure for miners to sell thier BTC for a high price because after all energy doesn't come from the grid.

Bitcoin Mining has so much threats to it already which Treasury Department obligates miners to give them access to data of market participants. With such threats, and miners has no choice or else they are done, makes Bitcoin network centralize.

It might not take too long before the government issues documents who are the people only allowed to mine BTC.

[pooya87]

But why is it that somehow Elon dictates what miners have to do?

Who said he is?
It's a free world and you can make any statement in the media regardless of how stupid it is and when you have some popularity that statement could spread over the internet more.
Elon Musk has only been trying to be seen and gain some attention so that he could troll the cryptocurrency market with his FUD and hype flip flops.

[NeuroticFish]

But why is it that somehow Elon dictates what miners have to do?

Because the boss of Uber will most probably read what Elon said, but won't care what you or me are saying. Sadly.

It overly interesting to see that Elon, the boss of Tesla was trending this "bitcoin is bad for environment" part, like his electric cars in China (for example) would do any better. But his curtain of smoke worked well, everybody is demonizing bitcoin and consider his cars friendly with the environment.

I see here 2 good short ideas:

where you live determines what electric you get.

bitcoin miners are more mobile than traditional industries and can therefore move quickly to places where cheap renewable energy is available

All in all, this narrative may have even made bitcoin mining cleaner. But it didn't stop.
It may all be about who is dictating the news, after all...

[franky1]

It overly interesting to see that Elon, the boss of Tesla was trending this "bitcoin is bad for environment" part,

how about his doge love

for 3.25kw you can get 110,000,000mhash for bitcoin
for 3.45kw you will get           9,500mhash for doge
(yes they use different algo's. but bitcoin is proven more secure)

doge mining is 11579x less efficient

there are only ~30k doge asics but uses 0.88TWH/y (if based on the L7 asic)for 0.000,279exahash(279terrahash)
right now bitcoin has 1.7m asics but uses 47THW/y.. for 190exahash
if doge also used 1.7m asics it would use 51TWH/y.. for 16peta (0.016exahash)

doge only appears to use less electric. not due to tech, algo or technique. but simply that there are 58x less people mining it

also doge miners are usually home hobbiests(not choosing to set up in renewable regions) thus energy mix is more random towards the 20% renewable

[DapanasFruit]

Most of environmental propaganda we see on mainstream media, including Bitcoin mining influence is a pure fiction, but I guess you can pump anything if you give it enough attention. You pay few journalists and corrupt scientist who hate bitcoin and you will get perfect mixture that fits into modern green narrative agenda for brave new world. Imagine something like Bitcoin mining that uses only 0.05% of the total energy consumption getting so much attention and bad press, it means they really don't like it, and it has nothing to do with environment.

I fully agree with this. Right now, there are many scientists whose opinions can be bought  for anything and they are not anymore following the science or maybe they got their own definition and understanding of science. And we have the mainstream media that can easily be swayed to act as the outlets for garbage...they stopped to do some credible digging a long time ago since it can take time and so they just repeat what is feed on them. Now, that credible information are already on the table, these people are so silent they will surely not cover this up as the narrative they are convinced with can be broken and they can be exposed as liars.

[franky1]

[tbct_mt2]

It is right to say Bitcoin mining is harmful for the environment. It is true to say the mining industry contributes to global warming. However, it is not true if anyone, any institution say that Bitcoin mining is the worst harmful contributor/ industry to global warming or any judgement coming closely to that extreme level. It is absolutely untrue.

Bitcoin mining uses power from both renewable resources and non-renewable resources and the proportion of renewable resources is better than other industry. Its total consumed energy is less than many industries, many nations so it is inaccurate to say it is the worst contributor for global warming or the most hazardous industry for global environment.

In future, the proportion of renewable power resources in Bitcoin mining industry will only increase, to higher number than about 60% now.

[hatshepsut93]

In future, the proportion of renewable power resources in Bitcoin mining industry will only increase, to higher number than about 60% now.

There's a problem that Bitcoin creates demand for electricity, and coal/gas power plants come to fill this demand. This problem is nowhere big enough to single out Bitcoin as a big polluter on the same level as meat industry or transportation industry, but for governments it can be tempting to regulate or even ban mining, because it's such a low-hanging fruit - they will present it as fighting climate change, and no one will protest, because crypto users are a minority, and even within them not everyone cares about PoW.

[NeuroticFish]

There's a problem that Bitcoin creates demand for electricity, and coal/gas power plants come to fill this demand.

In my country, for example, regenerable electricity is considered unreliable (which is correct, since wind and sun don't work 24/7) and (unfortunately) their solution is to still cover the industrial need for electricity from reliable sources (coal, nuclear, maybe hydro). And the surplus is sold/get rid of.
That's the actual green energy: something many countries don't know what to do with. Still they blame bitcoin mining for not being green. Isn't that hypocrisy?


Of course, I'm advocating this for some time already: large scale miners should build their own (green) energy production facilities. This will ensure they can operate for very long, no matter how low the block reward will drop and would also shut off the political trolls.