Peace of mind for Bitcoin Mining if it is renewable?

[TheGhostMan]

With hundreds of thousands or more computers churning out guesses, Bitcoin is believed to consume 707 kWh per transaction. Also, computers consume extra power because they generate heat and need to stay cool. And while it's impossible to know exactly how much electricity Bitcoin uses because different computers and cooling systems have different levels of energy efficiency, an analysis by the University of Cambridge estimated that bitcoin mining consumes 121.36 terawatt hours per year. This is more than all of Argentina consumes, or more than the consumption of Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft together.

That seems to me to be very important for the environment, of course it is, since it is no secret to anyone that this activity consumes a lot of electricity and, furthermore, with energies that are not favorable for the environment. but from my point of view everything in this life is money, politics and above all power, I feel that despite the fact that mining companies become 100% renewable energies or at least have a source of energy that does not influence the environment environment, find a way to slow it down. We already know that Bitcoin is a digital currency that is not managed or controlled by any entity and many do not like this because they cannot have control over it and do everything to find a way to prevent it from being so successful. From my point of view, I don't think they will leave Bitcoin mining alone if it is up to date with everything.
Information extracted from: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/09/20/bitcoins-impacts-on-climate-and-the-environment/

[1715280244]

1715280244

[Welsh]

Bitcoin won't become 100% renewable until every single other industry is, i.e the grid that they run off is 100% renewable, and to be honest we are quite a bit away from achieving that. Won't be for a long time, and dare I say it, I doubt it'll be done. The thing is, this renewable energy talk is big money right now, once we've converted so much of it, is it going to be as big money then? i.e reducing the urgency of converting, and therefore the motivation.

Money is the driving factor at the moment, not caring about the environment. Most of these companies don't care, they only care about public perception. While, there will be certain companies more environmentally conscious, I'm generalising somewhat on purpose, since I feel Bitcoin has been rather generalised against.

I'm getting a bit tired of all the talk if I'm quite honest. I'd be a lot more tolerable if everyone dropped the bias (including Bitcoin fanatics), and just talked straight out facts, but I think that's probably too much to ask.

[mk4]

Bitcoin, or literally any industry out there being 100% renewable is a huge pipe dream. It's pretty much similar to hoping that 100% of humanity will be morally good people — sounds very great in concept but literally impossible to achieve.

^ Also taking note that we're talking about Bitcoin here — probably literally the most difficult industry to regulate.

[Gyfts]

Bitcoin doesn't have to use renewable energy sources as long as it remains energy efficient relative to any other financial systems. The question of energy consumption isn't premised on anything other than hyperactivity for the green sectors (financially motivated actors, is my guess) or the usual green sector hippies that wants the world to sacrifice energy consumption for the sake of saving some endangered species of giraffe in a place no one has heard of. The latter folks don't encompass crypto's main critics, to be fair.

From my point of view, I don't think they will leave Bitcoin mining alone if it is up to date with everything.

The attacks would continue even if crypto currency were completely sustainable. Out of all the angles to attack crypto, energy consumption is by far the weakest and most illogical. Don't expect these people to be arguing in good faith.

[Welsh]

^ Also taking note that we're talking about Bitcoin here — probably literally the most difficult industry to regulate.

Yeah, the only way you achieve mass regulation with Bitcoin is unfortunately via bringing in legislation, and even then its not a guarantee people will listen. That's the unfortunate thing about this though, while I think it's all being blown out of proportion, the real risk is public perception, and right now the public would probably support bringing in some hefty legislation to control Bitcoin, since in their heads we are the big bad wolves, when in reality we're, but a spec on the very well oiled machine.

The attacks would continue even if crypto currency were completely sustainable. Out of all the angles to attack crypto, energy consumption is by far the weakest and most illogical. Don't expect these people to be arguing in good faith.

I don't know. I would disagree. The way the world is going, I actually think the energy debate might be the one that to significantly prevent Bitcoin adoption, and probably is the biggest threat. Now, don't jump to conclusions there, I don't think this because the claims are absolutely right, I say this because it's a matter of public perception. Public perception is important to us, even if we do like to pretend it isn't. Public perception, directly translates to adoption, which effectively...effects all of us. So, we should be caring about what the public think to a certain extent, however convincing them of the almost slander that has been happening will be difficult. I say almost slander, because in reality they have a point that we could be better, but so could every other industry out there.

Bitcoin is just easier to attack since there's no way to actually verify all the numbers, and there's no authority pointing miners what to do. Also, the fact that Proof of Work is seen as a negative thing by most people due to the energy needed, even though it's vital to Bitcoin in its current implementation.

[mk4]

Yeah, the only way you achieve mass regulation with Bitcoin is unfortunately via bringing in legislation, and even then its not a guarantee people will listen.

Not just legislation, countries worldwide would need to go as far as to unionize to deploy a blanket legislation.

That's the unfortunate thing about this though, while I think it's all being blown out of proportion, the real risk is public perception, and right now the public would probably support bringing in some hefty legislation to control Bitcoin, since in their heads we are the big bad wolves, when in reality we're, but a spec on the very well oiled machine.

Even if we reach 100% renewables with Bitcoin public perception would still be shite. People would say something along the lines of "Bitcoin is still a waste of energy because we could've been using the renewable energy for more important things" or something like that.

[fiulpro]

It does not matter if the mining is renewable, you have to ask if the way the electricity is generated is ! One have to understand that it does not depend on the mining but the industry where the source of power is coming from. Some countries are living on the energy which is supported by the renewable sources whereas some are currently thinking about converting therefore the miner has to decide if he wants to make further investment and provide a greener alternative for the whole grid as well. It's very essential to understand that government is getting way more concerned about mining everyday therefore it is wise to make the best use.
If you are living in a country with high intensity wind- then you can very easily install a windmill and power up your mining farm. This ofc takes investment+knowledge. Also in some countries it's banned to mine at all because of the concerns of the environment.

[Upgrade00]

It does not matter if the mining is renewable, you have to ask if the way the electricity is generated is ! One have to understand that it does not depend on the mining but the industry where the source of power is coming from.

The topic on "renewable" is focused on the electricity which the mining rigs consume.
The societal perspective is that if it cinsimes much electricity them it's contributing to climate change as the high electricity demand requires more supply.

Miners can switch to more renewable sources and provided their own electricity, using wind or sunlight which would not cause damage to the environment.

[Gyfts]

The attacks would continue even if crypto currency were completely sustainable. Out of all the angles to attack crypto, energy consumption is by far the weakest and most illogical. Don't expect these people to be arguing in good faith.

I don't know. I would disagree. The way the world is going, I actually think the energy debate might be the one that to significantly prevent Bitcoin adoption, and probably is the biggest threat. Now, don't jump to conclusions there, I don't think this because the claims are absolutely right, I say this because it's a matter of public perception. Public perception is important to us, even if we do like to pretend it isn't. Public perception, directly translates to adoption, which effectively...effects all of us. So, we should be caring about what the public think to a certain extent, however convincing them of the almost slander that has been happening will be difficult. I say almost slander, because in reality they have a point that we could be better, but so could every other industry out there.

Bitcoin is just easier to attack since there's no way to actually verify all the numbers, and there's no authority pointing miners what to do. Also, the fact that Proof of Work is seen as a negative thing by most people due to the energy needed, even though it's vital to Bitcoin in its current implementation.

IMO the lists of challenges people face are so large that climate change is near the bottom. I don't disagree that it's a hurdle but the public perception challenge for Bitcoin is the volatility, and that only can get solved with mass adoption. If Bitcoin could be ran off of cow dung and hamster wheels, I'd imagine a hamster rights advocacy group would come out of the woodwork to advocate for hamsters' rights to spite crypto. It's never just about saving the environment, it's about pushing an anti-crypto agenda.

[Welsh]

Not just legislation, countries worldwide would need to go as far as to unionize to deploy a blanket legislation.

Yeah, which isn't going to happen. I mean the West is really pushing the renewable energy narrative, but I don't believe the East are, as much at least. It'll probably be Europe to make the first move if anything, although I'm not sure how likely that is either mind you.

Even if we reach 100% renewables with Bitcoin public perception would still be shite. People would say something along the lines of "Bitcoin is still a waste of energy because we could've been using the renewable energy for more important things" or something like that.

Hopefully by the time that happens, we'll have a cure for stupidity too . Nah, in all seriousness I'm hoping we've converted the masses by then, since fiat by that time will be in the trenches, we're already heading for a global recession, probably a lot worse than the 2009 crisis.