Bitcoin making computers more EFFICIENT & powerful making the world save ENERGY?

[remotemass]

Hey,

How good is the argument that bitcoin is actually making the world save energy since it is pushing the limits of computer technology making computers more efficient and powerful and so having an overall positive impact in saving the world?
Is that a convincing argument to those that say that bitcoin is a huge waste of energy?

- remotemass

[1715539383]

1715539383

[1715539383]

1715539383

[1715539383]

1715539383

[1715539383]

1715539383

[BlackHatCoiner]

I wouldn't say so.

If a person isn't yet convinced that an internet currency that works 24/7/365 without borders, without censorship, without risk of confiscation, without the danger of central point's abuse, without inflation risk, more efficiently, effectively, cheaply, privately, faster than the already existent electronic forms of money, requires less energy than them and still thinks it's a bad idea, he's not going to be convinced about improving technological efficiency either.

The problem lies with him. Not with you.

[Welsh]

Pretty poor argument. Bitcoin isn't really making computers more efficient for one. The development of miners is somewhat separate as they're doing it for a particular purpose. General computers which run our money system, and most other industries are what you'd consider general computers, which don't need the processing power or the hardware that a miner or a gaming machine would need. So, the effect of Bitcoin on advancement of technology, at least when comparing general/personal computers is negligible.

However, BlackHatCoiner's argument is a little more compelling. No one's done the Math, because the data would be hard to collect, but it takes common sense to see how much our current mainstream currency is using to stay afloat. Especially, now we're making the move to digital money, rather than predominately physical money. Although, even the latter has some pretty harmful effects to the environment in itself.

[TheNineClub]

Hey,

How good is the argument that bitcoin is actually making the world save energy since it is pushing the limits of computer technology making computers more efficient and powerful and so having an overall positive impact in saving the world?
Is that a convincing argument to those that say that bitcoin is a huge waste of energy?

- remotemass

It's a good argument to an extent, and that is that BTC is a part of the emerging technologies that are pushing the limits of computing and demanding for computer tech to keep up with it's demands. So it's definatelly not the only thing, but it's in the category with other new techonlogys and social developements.

[darkv0rt3x]

Adding to what @BlackatCoiner said, we all know that current fiat finance system wastes way more energy than Bitcoin by realllyyyyy far! And if you think that it's a collapsing system, they you don't need many more arguments.
If one chooses to say out, then, HFSP!!!

[tadamichi]

Hey,

How good is the argument that bitcoin is actually making the world save energy since it is pushing the limits of computer technology making computers more efficient and powerful and so having an overall positive impact in saving the world?
Is that a convincing argument to those that say that bitcoin is a huge waste of energy?

- remotemass

I get where youre coming from.

But first Bitcoin uses ASICS not regular computers, so it doesnt directly make computers better. But it also doesnt hurt to have more production sites that could produce computer parts around, just in case.

Second, Bitcoin also uses its fair share of energy. But the economic incentives surrounding it, actually help to produce more cleaner forms of energy. Saving on energy wont work in general on the big scale, we need an abundance of energy for it to be cheap for everyone.

The better argument would be to say that Bitcoin helps us to tackle the issue of energy scarcity, by subsidising the creation of new energy sites and providing a buyer for renewable energy 24/7. During peak demand it can also provide energy to the grid(means cheaper electricity for everyone close).   

But also dont forget that emotional people are immune to rational arguments, so good luck convincing anyone.

[LegendaryK]

Hey,

How good is the argument that bitcoin is actually making the world save energy since it is pushing the limits of computer technology making computers more efficient and powerful and so having an overall positive impact in saving the world?
Is that a convincing argument to those that say that bitcoin is a huge waste of energy?

- remotemass

It has no effect on real computers, asics only mine btc , and nothing else.
So the argument is false.

Bitcoin is a huge energy waster, mainly because no matter how much energy they use, it does not increase it's security, speed, or transaction capacity.
Every altcoin outperforms btc and every altcoin uses less energy even the other proof of waste coins like ltc.

[tadamichi]

Every altcoin outperforms btc and every altcoin uses less energy even the other proof of waste coins like ltc.

If your measure of scale is being a useless ponzi token, then yeah every altcoin is outperforming Bitcoin in uselessness by a lot. Handling many transactions and consuming less energy is easy when you’re centralized and no real achievement, because they’re even more inefficient at this than our legacy finance system.

And it’s nice to have nice stats about scalability on paper, but it doesn’t matter when no one actually uses ur token, because it’s whole purpose is to serve some weird VCs and not actual people.

Being decentralised has its energy cost.
It can’t be reduced by feelings or cool marketing lines, if you’re ruled by your emotions go ahead and keep closing your eyes, but it won’t change reality.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bitcoin is a huge energy waster, mainly because no matter how much energy they use, it does not increase it's security

This is false. The more the energy that is used, the greater the difficulty. The greater the difficulty, the more infeasible it is to conduct a 51% attack, and therefore, the greater the security.

speed, or transaction capacity.

Good. That's how it supposed to work. It shouldn't have variable block sizes or block intervals.

[altcoin gibberish]

Do you deliberately try to make it sound as you hate the Bitcoin community? If you do, leave it, we've already debunked your weak arguments and you're constantly ignoring us. There's no point to continue whining about PoW in here, you're only stultifying yourself.

It's contradictory that you keep calling them "altcoins", though. Alternative to what? 

[tadamichi]

It's contradictory that you keep calling them "altcoins", though. Alternative to what? 

Maybe an alternative to sound money, if we look at the amount of people that got liquidated or gave up their keys for yield in ponzi schemes, i think it’s fair to assume that some people enjoy getting scammed, despite so many warnings. If they’re looking for this, Bitcoin is definitely the wrong place.

Sorry for the sarcasm.

[hatshepsut93]

However, BlackHatCoiner's argument is a little more compelling. No one's done the Math, because the data would be hard to collect, but it takes common sense to see how much our current mainstream currency is using to stay afloat. Especially, now we're making the move to digital money, rather than predominately physical money. Although, even the latter has some pretty harmful effects to the environment in itself.

Various infographics show that that banking industry consumes the same order of magnitude of electricity as Bitcoin. But Bitcoin processes up to 1 million transactions per day, while banking industry processes nearly all digital transactions in the world. Even with Lightning Network Bitcoin wouldn't be able to be used by all people in the world. Currently around 30 million people own Bitcoin, while everyone owns fiat. So Bitcoin is actually extremely inefficient between how much energy it consumes and how much utility to the world it provides.

[tadamichi]

Various infographics show that that banking industry consumes the same order of magnitude of electricity as Bitcoin. But Bitcoin processes up to 1 million transactions per day, while banking industry processes nearly all digital transactions in the world. Even with Lightning Network Bitcoin wouldn't be able to be used by all people in the world. Currently around 30 million people own Bitcoin, while everyone owns fiat. So Bitcoin is actually extremely inefficient between how much energy it consumes and how much utility to the world it provides.

Utility is more complex than transactions per day. The banking industry processes 0 decentralised, immutable, permissionless transactions a day, so in this regard they don’t provide any censorship resistance to the world, while bitcoin does. And this just one of many factors that play into utility. Bitcoin can’t do everything at the same time, without having any limitations or time to grow. These two are also complete opposites with completely different use cases. Bitcoin is way more efficient than anything else for the job it’s supposed to do.

[hatshepsut93]

Bitcoin is way more efficient than anything else for the job it’s supposed to do.

If you want to analyze Bitcoin only as a censorship resistant digital money transfer, then Bitcoin simply has no competition, aside from altcoins, which can be ignored, because they are not secure. And since Bitcoin has no competition in this sphere, talking about efficiency makes no sense, because there's nothing to compare to.

But we can still talk about adoption by global population and energy use. Bitcoin is adopted by 0.4% of world's population, and only a small fraction of those people do transactions regularly, while Bitcoin consumes 0.1-0.2 of world's electricity. This isn't efficient, compared to other industries. Bitcoiners often say that video streaming or gaming consume even more electricity than Bitcoin, but those things provide utility to 10-30% of global population.


I'm not saying here that Bitcoin should be more efficient, or should be shut down because it's inefficient. I just don't want Bitcoin community to lie to the world, because in the long run the world will figure it out, and Bitcoin community will lose trust.

[tadamichi]

Bitcoin is way more efficient than anything else for the job it’s supposed to do.

If you want to analyze Bitcoin only as a censorship resistant digital money transfer, then Bitcoin simply has no competition, aside from altcoins, which can be ignored, because they are not secure. And since Bitcoin has no competition in this sphere, talking about efficiency makes no sense, because there's nothing to compare to.

But we can still talk about adoption by global population and energy use. Bitcoin is adopted by 0.4% of world's population, and only a small fraction of those people do transactions regularly, while Bitcoin consumes 0.1-0.2 of world's electricity. This isn't efficient, compared to other industries. Bitcoiners often say that video streaming or gaming consume even more electricity than Bitcoin, but those things provide utility to 10-30% of global population.


I'm not saying here that Bitcoin should be more efficient, or should be shut down because it's inefficient. I just don't want Bitcoin community to lie to the world, because in the long run the world will figure it out, and Bitcoin community will lose trust.

I get your point and it’s fair, i just want to broaden the perspective, that scaling in a decentralized is way harder than in a centralized one. The non bitcoin world often portays it as if bitcoin uses energy for no reason, but the truth is there’s no other way than this currently. If we want decentralized infrastructure we have to use energy.

I think we should also point out the differences in centralized vs decentralized architecture, so people actually understand why it does this and why some limitations are there.

[BlackHatCoiner]

So Bitcoin is actually extremely inefficient between how much energy it consumes and how much utility to the world it provides.

This is the same as saying that it's inefficient because it uses too much energy for only 7 TXs/sec. It definitely is inefficient, that way, but its properties are much broader than that. It's far more efficient to move thousands of dollars oversea now more than ever. It's far more efficient to open a channel with your co-workers, and pay them that way, instantly, with zero fees.

The fact that the world ignores these advantages, doesn't make it unfavorable. It's potentially more efficient than the banking system.

If you want to analyze Bitcoin only as a censorship resistant digital money transfer

Which is its main property. You can't mention bitcoin to someone if you don't add censorship resistance. That's why comparisons between other payment methods may be problematic. And that's why bitcoin is so valuable anyway.

[stompix]

How good is the argument that bitcoin is actually making the world save energy since it is pushing the limits of computer technology making computers more efficient and powerful and so having an overall positive impact in saving the world?

As bad as it can get!
ASICs are not mainstream computers, and ASICs are far below the top end specs of computer chips right now.

The argument is pretty flawed since the development of ASICs is basically funded by the daily reward miners get, you can't sell them more gear that they need and you can't sell them one every year just because it's fancier. The daily reward is now 18 million, this includes ROI, includes energy costs includes miners' profit, let's say one-quarter of that goes to gear, it means 2 billion years, TSMC alone makes 45 billion.

The fact that the world ignores these advantages, doesn't make it unfavorable. It's potentially more efficient than the banking system.

Potentially, but this potential comes with a different disadvantage, let's assume 1 billion people would be using bitcoin, I highly doubt the price would be 20k and far more likely 100k-200k at worse in such case, right?
Multiplying the reward by 10 times would mean at least a 7-8 raise in energy consumption too, right? 

[BlackHatCoiner]

I highly doubt the price would be 20k and far more likely 100k-200k at worse in such case, right?

I can't know. That's complete speculation.

Multiplying the reward by 10 times would mean at least a 7-8 raise in energy consumption too, right?

Again, I can't know what the energy consumption will be if the price increases that much, because that's one more speculation. I'm pretty certain that the difficulty would increase if the price did a 10x, even thought price isn't strictly correlated with difficulty. And, even that way, it's more efficient to send money across the globe for a nickle, to pay your employees instantly, for free, privately, efficiently, same as to make a purchase online, and the like.

It's working more efficiently than the banking system that requires skyscrapers, ATMs, transports, credit/debit cards, money issuance, armored cars, servers, further computing power, employees; these resources are just from the top of my head. And, ultimately, you can't know exactly how much energy is used, in contrast with bitcoin, wherein you can find that out with a bitcoin-cli -getinfo. Transparently.

[stompix]

I highly doubt the price would be 20k and far more likely 100k-200k at worse in such case, right?

I can't know. That's complete speculation.

But you can safely assume the price will be higher, maybe 5x or maybe 30x, the price being the same with 1 billion users would be nearly impossible.

Again, I can't know what the energy consumption will be if the price increases that much, because that's one more speculation. I'm pretty certain that the difficulty would increase if the price did a 10x, even thought price isn't strictly correlated with difficulty.

No, it's not, but again, a higher reward would make miners spend more on gear.
A simple check on the profitability spikes on every TH/s will show an obvious correlation between a huge increase in the price of miners and them being sold out.

It's working more efficiently than the banking system that requires skyscrapers, ATMs, transports, credit/debit cards, money issuance, armored cars, servers, further computing power, employees; these resources are just from the top of my head.

Yeah, you know, back in 2017 bitcoiners were quoting this article a lot around here
https://hackernoon.com/the-bitcoin-vs-visa-electricity-consumption-fallacy-8cf194987a50
It put the banking industry at 100Twh, and Bitcoin's network at 3 times lower just 28.67
Then last year came the report from Galaxy digital, which put the banking consumption at 263Twh, making the bitcoin network still more efficient at only 113Twh.
But early this year, the Bitcoin mining council release their numbers which raised bitcoin usage at 247 TWh.

And that was back in March when we were below 200exa, we're now already at 220...
I'm telling you, dropping the bank comparison would be the best, it did not age well at all and it won't be a nice finding in a year or two.

[evichi]

From a different point of view, there is light at the end of the tunnel. In a bid to find alternative energy source for mining bitcoin, without harming the environment, more positive discoveries could be made that will benefit the energy sector as well as being environmentally friendly. The search for alternative energy for mining Bitcoin that is more environmentally friendly, is therefore, pushing the boundaries of technology to arrive at better alternatives. Therefore, the initial perceived negative effect of Bitcoin mining, could turn around to be positive when better alternative energy sources are discovered.

[remotemass]

As bad as it can get!
ASICs are not mainstream computers, and ASICs are far below the top end specs of computer chips right now.

Yeah, right, ASICs are not general-purpose computers but still, you need computer scientists and engineers to push that technology, no? And you will probably end up with skilled people to build the next iterations of computer architectures. Maybe many of them end up building Tesla computer chips and technology... Just sayin'...

- remotemass