The Market Has Been On Red, But Bitcoin Doesn't Need To Be Green To Survive.

[Veloxcrypt]

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.
Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion. Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out.
If miners naturally move toward cheaper energy (including renewables), that’s fine, but forcing a narrative might do more harm than good.
The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.
The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

[Somegory]

If Bitcoin is easier to mine there will always be quick sell off, right now miners are selling some part of their Bitcoin so as to stay in the business, it's called surviving strategy, so that when Bitcoin goes so down they will have some money aside to keep running their miners.

Miners are good at having patience, once Bitcoin goes into a bear market it will take a long time to see the value increases again, and securing some profits means they can be able to run their miners even in those bearish market.

Green energy isn't free, it is very costly, don't let anyone deceive you, it takes alot of money, enough to buy asic miners to set up a green energy for a mining farm.

[rat03gopoh]

People might get bored of explaining over and over again: "Gold is dug up in the ground. Banks run buildings, servers, offices, and security forces. The fiat system prints and distributes money globally."

Everything has an energy footprint. Bitcoin is just more transparent. There are many articles to counter that, and the most well-known one is https://bitcoincleanup.com
However, I agree with you. ts core value is proof-of-work-based security. Energy is what makes a 51% attack so expensive.

[okae]

If miners naturally move toward cheaper energy (including renewables), that’s fine, but forcing a narrative might do more harm than good.
The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.

If im not wrong there is some studies that says that more than 50% of all energy used in BTC mining is renewable, but if even this is truth there is always people ready to criticism BTC. IMHO use all that amount of energy tu run the best monetary system that the human have create is more than ok...

The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

Dont understand the question, markets cant be never always green and they survive...maybe a better question could be, do people understand that BTC is here to stay and that they should use it?

[sleepfirefly]

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.
Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion. Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out.
If miners naturally move toward cheaper energy (including renewables), that’s fine, but forcing a narrative might do more harm than good.
The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.
The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

no but it wouldn’t hurt for bitcoin to ride the sustainability wave so that its use will not only be productive but also healthy for the environment. we are unfortunately at a point where we have to also consider the environment. taking care of the environment and bitcoin’s productivity can coexist at the same time. no need to choose one over the other

[ContentWriter]

The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.

Where did you hear people say that? I've been following Bitcoin for some years now and never once heard anyone say Bitcoin's survival depends of market forces or the chart.

Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion.

I agree with this. Bitcoin's strength comes from its design and utility as a store of value and means of exchanging value, not some opinions, yes.

Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out

.

People who single out energy consumption as a Bitcoin demerit are mainly conservatives who cannot understand why digital money is need in the first instance. They have preference for good old paper money and may have been brainwashed by the media that the world needs less monetary innovations to survive.

The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.

In reality, this is easier imagined and said than done. Alternative energy doesn't come cheap. The good old fossil fuel is still among the cheapest and Bitcoin miners are in reality, energy guzzlers.

[aylabadia05]

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.

People who don't know how the market works. People who understand how the market works would not think this way. Come on. People with this mindset usually only focus on the price when evaluating Bitcoin.

The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

It's not necessarily because the market is volatile, causing prices to fluctuate.

[hd49728]

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.
Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion. Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out.
If miners naturally move toward cheaper energy (including renewables), that’s fine, but forcing a narrative might do more harm than good.
The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.

You're watching the market with candles like daily, hourly, or even in minutes from 5, 15 to 30 minutes. All these views with such candles are too short and it makes you more emotional in this volatile market. If you use other charts that are longer in time frames like monthly or best in yearly, you will see less short term wild volatility.

For example, look at this yearly chart.
https://charts.bitbo.io/yearly-candles/

You can easily see Bitcoin price growth with years while all daily changes don't show in this chart and you no longer feel fomo or panich with this yearly chart. In short term, if you watch the price and chart too much, your thinking, emotion and actions in this market will be affected and no longer as how it was initially is in your plan.

The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

In long term, a red yearly candle does not change the trend. So it means monthly or daily red candles don't change anything in Bitcoin bulish trend.

[lornadane]

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.
Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion. Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out.
If miners naturally move toward cheaper energy (including renewables), that’s fine, but forcing a narrative might do more harm than good.
The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.
The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

yea i agree bitcoin is in a world of it own. the consumption of energy is apart of the process just like any other money making method. making money is not free and some thing always has to be given in the process. so no i dont think bitcoin have to be green for a long term survival.

[pawanjain]

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.
Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion. Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out.
If miners naturally move toward cheaper energy (including renewables), that’s fine, but forcing a narrative might do more harm than good.
The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.
The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

I think bitcoin is doing pretty good. It's just the negative PR that some people want to make negative comments about bitcoin because they didn't get in early.
A lot of industries dump their waste in rivers whose water we consume on use and daily basis but the media won't show that.
Their concern is only with bitcoin using more energy and making noise while they ignore the real problems.

Coming to the mining part, I think. it's kinda better that bitcoin mining process is not that easy.
I would say that bitcoin mining process has to be more difficult so that not everyone can start mining and dump their coins in the market.
It needs to hold more value and only when the people hold it longer, its price will increase in the longer term.

[nakamura12]

I don't think Bitcoin can't survive long term because if not then why would Bitcoin still exist for over a decade. During the years I am into crypto I never saw Bitcoin being unable to survive even during those times where I saw the price is at $3k to $10k. Compared to before, It is now 6 times of the price before and 10 times when it reached $100k before. In my opinion, those people who think Bitcoin won't survive only thinks about Bitcoin in short time and didn't think about the history of Bitcoin and what it is right now.

[Smartprofit]

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.
Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion. Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out.
If miners naturally move toward cheaper energy (including renewables), that’s fine, but forcing a narrative might do more harm than good.
The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.
The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

Which energy sources are environmentally friendly? 🙋 I believe it's nuclear power. Nuclear power plants produce the maximum amount of electricity with minimal environmental impact.

However, many countries ban the construction of nuclear power plants. For example, in Germany, all nuclear power plants were shut down. This was due to concerns about major accidents (at least two such accidents occurred – in the USSR and Japan). At the same time, nuclear power plants are quite safe to operate if all safety regulations are followed. Furthermore, nuclear power plants should never be built on sea coasts or in seismically active zones (as Japanese nuclear scientists did).🤷

I believe that concerns about Bitcoin's impact on the environment are greatly exaggerated. Artificial intelligence consumes much more electricity than Bitcoin. And, in my opinion, the search for cheap electricity for the development of artificial intelligence (and this search is actively underway) will lead to Bitcoin automatically solving all its energy problems.🧖

[Joy_learns_crypto]

People might get bored of explaining over and over again: "Gold is dug up in the ground. Banks run buildings, servers, offices, and security forces. The fiat system prints and distributes money globally."

Everything has an energy footprint. Bitcoin is just more transparent. There are many articles to counter that, and the most well-known one is https://bitcoincleanup.com
However, I agree with you. ts core value is proof-of-work-based security. Energy is what makes a 51% attack so expensive.

Even the hospitals that save lives mostly run through energy, some uses renewable sources of energy but it is so expensive that many other doesn’t.
Factories, companies that are needs in our day to day lives also does so.
Bitcoin mining doesn’t compare with factories in terms of environmental pollution.

[Floxynice]

I am seeing alot of misinterpretations on op's post. Or perhaps I am the one who is wrong here. I believe the "green" being referred to in the op is about environmental sustainability and not really about green candles as some replies I have read so far suggests. The discussion about energy usage explains better what op meant. I am open to correction if I'm wrong.

Energy usage is never a limitation for bitcoin. This can be fixed as science and technology gets better, better energy sources are discovered to fix the challenges caused by high energy consumption. There are already some improvements as there are now renewable energy sources to fix this.

As long as bitcoin remains decentralized, secured and with economic value, Bitcoin will survive long term. Those are the most important things.

[goldkingcoiner]

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.
Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion. Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out.
If miners naturally move toward cheaper energy (including renewables), that’s fine, but forcing a narrative might do more harm than good.
The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.
The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

Not sure what you mean but this is just a correction.
Everything that goes up must come down.

Now, I understand that you are feeling a certain way about this red market, but if you invested in Bitcoin then you must have been confident of your decision. Don't let the red candles force you into an emotional decision. Take your time and explore the reasons for the market going down.

In the long term, I believe Bitcoin will go up because it is in it's nature to be rare and become rarer.  A panic sell such as the current dump says nothing about demand but rather how panicky crypto investors can be. Even whales.

[treesintheforestooh]

There may be some interest in this Bitcoin Talk post which is related to the topic here.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5555069

If interested in decentralization and security, Bitcoin must insure the value of the network does not outpace the security founding that value, i.e. you don't want to be securing a $multi-Trillion network with security of only a few $B. That's to say if a network worth $10 only costs $1 to attack and debilitate, then that's a big, big problem. Indeed, even if it cost $9 to attack it would still be worth it - or if attacking for geo-political andor real politik reasons, one may attack even if it's not monetarily beneficial.   

[PrivacyG]

People often argue that Bitcoin must go fully green to survive long-term.

China is surviving exceptionally well on an extremely polluting environment.  Long term it does not need any thing else other than usage, Miners whether green or not, Nodes, support generally and the people who still see some value in it.

Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion.

Probably true.  Probably because there are many more strengths.  Freedom, Privacy.  Instant transfers, although it is becoming a much lower priority strength now considering Banks are starting to 'compete' with this one by offering instant transfers as well.

Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out.

I have not heard of this 'Bitcoin consumes energy!' or 'Bitcoin is the fault for Global Warming!' in a long while now.   I am hoping people stop bringing this stupid subject up, it is to me as stupid as the other 'experts' still calling it a Ponzi.

If miners naturally move toward cheaper energy (including renewables), that’s fine, but forcing a narrative might do more harm than good.
The idea that bitcoin mining consumes energy shouldn't be seen as a limitation but as a challenge to bitcoin miners towards finding better or environmentally friendly energy sources.
The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

People move to renewable energy any way.  And most of them are not Miners who 'need' to do it.  Bitcoin does not NEED to become 'green' to survive.  If this is a problem then how about the Google underground servers.  Are they warming the ocean?  How about SpaceX.  Is he polluting the air more than I am by running a computer 2 hours a day?

It is undeniable that Mining is consuming energy.  But so does Amazon Web Services, so does Google, so does all the rest of the World such as Billionaires powering a 50 room mansion only 5 people actually live in and moving around the World using private jets.  It is easier to pretend being smart and point the fault at the rest of the World however.

[X-ray]

Personally, I think Bitcoin’s strength comes from decentralization and security, not from trying to satisfy public opinion. Every major industry consumes energy, yet Bitcoin gets singled out.

It's exactly at this statement. Bitcoin gets singled out and people doesn't seem to have as much problem with banks running massive power consuming server where the electricity is coming from a coal.

It's none other than just an attempt of FUD. Remember when Elon was complaining about bitcoin not being green enough? going as far as stopping bitcoin payment for his teslas. Well he doesn't complain anymore after he owns AI farm for grok.

There is certainly no other explanation other than an attempt of FUD and trying to bring bitcoin down for anyone who still complains about bitcoin not being green enough.

In fact bitcoin mining has been all about green energy.

[BlackBoss_]

People move to renewable energy any way.  And most of them are not Miners who 'need' to do it.  Bitcoin does not NEED to become 'green' to survive.  If this is a problem then how about the Google underground servers.  Are they warming the ocean?  How about SpaceX.  Is he polluting the air more than I am by running a computer 2 hours a day?

It is undeniable that Mining is consuming energy.  But so does Amazon Web Services, so does Google, so does all the rest of the World such as Billionaires powering a 50 room mansion only 5 people actually live in and moving around the World using private jets.  It is easier to pretend being smart and point the fault at the rest of the World however.

Renewable energy is good for the world and its enviromment as well as human surrouding quality but Bitcoin mining industry has already been green enough. Any attacks on Bitcoin mining industry about its energy consumption and say it uses dirty energy or harm the environmnet are non sense. It's true that Bitcoin mining consumes energy and not all of it is renewable, greenish but it's wrong to attack Bitcoin mining industry this way, if the attackers ignore the fact that other industries consume less renewable energy.

Bitcoin is already using green energy.
Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument
End the energy fud.
Bitcoin wastes energy critique.

[m2017]

The question still remains: does Bitcoin really need to go fully green to survive the long term?

Not bitcoin, but humanity should switch to renewable energy sources for the sake of its survival. For real, not for show.

Imposing green standards on bitcoin seems discriminatory. Let first other industries completely switch to “green” energy, and then impose this on BTC-mining.

I believe that energy consumption needs to be optimized and “green” energy developed, but when only bitcoin is demonized, as if mining is the only industry that consumes a lot of non-renewable energy, then like any critically thinking person, questions arise. Why does the media focus on bitcoin with this problem? I see in this a deliberate desire to “denigrate” bitcoin in the eyes of the public.

It also seems to me that all these slogans with “green energy” are a good PR campaign for making money. For example, solar panels for generating solar energy. Has the issue of disposal and recycling of these panels been resolved after they fail? What harm does the production of these solar panels cause to the environment? What energy is used in their production?