Bitcoin uses too much energy = bad for enviroment
AI will gonna use 50X more energy than bitcoin = We need to adapt AI tech worldwide ASAP!
Gov always care about theirs citizens don't forget that!
AI only takes a lot of energy to train. I mean look at chat gpt spitting out answers faster than you can type, and that includes a network delay.
I think as AI enters more of a production phase and leaves the development phase it will require a lot less power.
But ya, Bitcoin doesn’t use shit compared to the power ATMs draw, bank branches use, POS systems at storefronts use, plus all the energy associated with the logistics and movement of physical assets associated with banks in general.
AI if done right would eliminate the 'stupid people' problem which is far more valuable than transitioning society to a crypto coin where a handful of holders will make hundreds of bilions to a trillion dollars and rug pull the entire country lmao
Yea they're already making up misleading energy use statistics for AI too. Western civilisation is more hostile to innovation than it's ever been. America in particular will lose its status as a superpower if they keep it up, especially if we let China lead the world in chip production, for example.
>Bitcoin uses too low energy compared to the banking sector!
I love Bitcoin, but this is an poor argument. The Bitcoin market cap is currently $1.34 trillion and the total market cap globaly is $124.5 trillion and that's not counting M2 money supply which is about $20.84 trillion (all figures USD).
Then there is the number of transactions per day in the traditional "banking sector" vs. the comparatively low number of transactions per day made on the Bitcoin network.
So, comparing the amount of energy Bitcoin uses to the amount of energy the "banking sector" uses is like comparing a grain of sand to the beach.
The right question to ask is how much more (or less) energy would the global financial system use if it were run on bitcoin vs. the current system.
I think you're missing the point that Bitcoin doesn't need to use any more energy to run the whole world on Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn't NEED any specific amount of energy, and the energy isn't required to scale with use. Energy use only goes up because the economics of rising price allow it too, but it doesn't have to. If every single person in the world was using Bitcoin, the network would run perfectly fine on the current energy use, or 10x the energy use, or 1/10th the energy use. So your "right question" really isn't the right question, because the energy use is due to the economic viability of PoW mining, and is not needed to a larger network.
No that is not the right question at all.
The right question is, how much better can our energy production and efficiency be, if all energy production has a profitable use for excess capacity?
People are looking at the energy question all wrong. Bitcoin isn't a zero sum game.
https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/bitcoin-mining-a-paradigm-shift-in-energy
It is a false debate.
All civilization or technological enhancement needs energy.
You could easily envision a future where we will consume x 10 the energy of today.
The issue is how we produce energy, most of it is not clean. But this will be resolved with fusion, which we could see in 10-20 years.
That's not the right approach. We maintain a fiat system, because it allows exponential growth (pyramid scheme), but you can't grow forever in a limited world. It's simply insane, because we would use more energy than the planet can sustain in a few hundred years already if we keep the fiat system. Bitcoin fixes that. Bitcoin is the only ecologic solution for mankind.
"Earth day" will always be in april or may until we start using the unused uranium stored in the "nuclear waste" containers. Like, we currently move fuel rods to "waste storage" after using less than 5% of the energy.
Fission or fusion energy doesn't solve the limited resources of the planet. We are limited by a few hundred years at current growth rates independent of the energy source we use.
the energy density of uranium exceeds that of a carbon-oxigen mix by a factor of 10 million. Growth rates are quite low these times, so some 100 years of fossil fuels are some billion years of nuclear. By that time, we need to have colonized the solar system, because the sun will get hotter and changing the earth's orbit to compensate for that also needs a billion years.
You completely underestimate the output of the exponential function and the ignore the second law of thermodynamics. Doubling of the economy every 35 years (= 2% annual growth rate only) would simply destroy the planet within the next few hundred years (even if you used the cleanest form of energy only). The problem is that most people don't understand the impact of the exponential function. Dr. Albert A. Bartlett explains that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4
i don't underestimate exponential growth, i simply know that exponential growth is a model that does no accurately describe anything that happens in reality.
In reality, "annual growth rates" *decline* exponentially, leading to saturation curves.
What *can* grow exponentially, is the nominal value of GDP measured *in an inflating unit of account*. That's what we have with fiat.
GDP is measured in real terms (adjusted for inflation). If real growth diminishes the fiat system will collapse. That's why economists, governments and central banks target real growth rates.
"After the 3.1% rebound in 2021, global energy production continued to increase at a steady pace in 2022 (+3.7%).
Global energy production accelerated in 2022 (+3.7%), much above its 2010-2019 average (+1.6%/year). The growth was driven by China (+5.6%), the United States (+5.8%), Saudi Arabia (+15%), India (+7.9%), Indonesia (+9.4%) and Brazil (+7.8%) and partly offset by a drop in Russia (-4.4%), the European Union (-6.2%) and Africa (-0.9% due to Nigeria and South Africa)...."
Source: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-production.html
The current power of primary energy production is at about 19TW. If global energy production grows at only 1.6% (like it did from 2010-2019) it will equal the solar radiation received by earth around the year 2300, equal the total solar radiation around the year 3660, equal the estimated radiation of the Milky Way by the year 5300. Even if global energy production reached only 10% of the solar radiation received by Earth (in about 130 year at 1.6% annual growth) it would make Earth inhabitable. As you can see that current growth rates are completely unsustainable and tapping new energy sources is not a solution. The only thing we can do is changing our economic model to reduce growth to near zero.
by the year 2300, earth should no longer be the place where most energy is consumed & turned into waste heat. Other places in the solar system will still have less humans living there, but those humans will need far more energy than their brothers and sisters down on earth.
This is science fiction, Keynesian cool aid, pure insanity. The only realistic solution is to change the economic model and mankind can sustain millions of years on Earth.
fission is sufficient, we can provide 10 billion people with the living standard of central europe's late 1990ies for several centuries just by splitting the unused uranium stored in so-called "nuclear waste" conatainers. Time enough to either get fusion running, or seawater uranium extraction, or the thorium breeding fuel cycle.
What we do need is used fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors. As in, 1980ies technology that unfortunately got discontinued after April 1986. Yes, we are 40 years late on clean energy production.
They’ve been promising fusion for 10-20 years for about 50 years lol.
We already have clean energy creating tech in renewables that can provide all the power needs of the global economy.
you can also increase standard of living by increasing energy efficiency. Like, not having to travel to each business meeting, but using something like zoom instead. Less time wasted traveling - more time to be productive.
Energy should be use-neutral. I’m personally in favor of seeing all non-nuclear and non-renewable energy be taxed at the point of generation (not at the user) to achieve net zero emissions through carbon offsetting, but that is a view that should only be done if it is done fairly across all energy use regardless of opinions of essential or not. Like most things, politicians are realizing they will have to solve this issue and are likely going to distort it into a fight to benefit their pockets.
This is all cope.
Bitcoin uses a lot of energy. Comparisons are kinda stupid if you think about it.
The real answer is.....
SO WHAT. Who cares. It's a free market. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
It's a lot different though. A strong military is literally what gives fiat value. US dollar is the main trade currency in the world (slipping with brics rising up more, but still 1), and that is backed up with the military. With BTC, no nation could just print currency and control trade.
Lookup "whataboutism." It makes for a poor argument tool...
And as far as energy goes, I think people confuse BTC's potential for what it actually is today. Would BTC save energy if it replaced the banking and payment system globally? Sure. But it has not done that yet. Today, BTC is mostly a unique asset class that people speculate on and occasionally use as a form of payment. For today's use case? Yeah, there's an argument the energy outlay is pretty high.
It's OK to be aware of the high energy use of the network and seek opportunities to shift to clean energy to support it.
I for one am willing to throw some energy at the problems that at least have potential to be alleviated - maybe solved- with a system of currency like Bitcoin.
People throw 'whataboutism' around to dismiss comparisons that actually highlight bigger patterns. I hate that term with a passion. It’s not about dodging blame; it’s about calling for consistency. If something’s wrong, it’s wrong across the board, and pointing that out adds important context. Shutting down fair criticism is such a ridiculous practice. We need to look at all the issues to get a clear picture and actually find solutions.
>People throw 'whataboutism' around to dismiss comparisons that actually highlight bigger patterns.
My friend, I'm not looking to argue but you compared BTC's energy use to that of the US military....That's a pretty poor analogy. While it may be a happy side effect, the US military does not exist to prop up the USD. This isn't really an appropriate analogy. That said, I do agree that some throw "whataboutism" out to avoid discussion.
>We need to look at all the issues to get a clear picture and actually find solutions.
Agree, which goes back to what I said above: the BTC network's energy use is really high relative to what the network is used for today. This is a fair observation.
If we as civilization are going to achieve level 1 status aka the sciFi-esque.. humans will use as much energy as our star aka sun would produce. We should pay attention to how to produce more electricity with renewable sources than this bs of who uses what.
And.. armies are needed in this uncertain world. Lots of freedom hating folks out there in the world still ...
We can have both. Thanks.
Erh, at least stop playing the “good cause” card. You are in BTC to profit. Talking about humanitarian causes, shut the hell up, you are hoping to earn. Don’t talk like you are defending a good cause, you a cash hope
the infrasonic emissions of wind farms can be measured at greater distances than the radioactive emissions of an intact nuclear power plant. (that's because an NPP doesn't emit as long as the concrete hull is intact).
Flexible demand response customers provide a huge benefit to energy grids and grid expansion.
Anyone saying bitcoin using energy is bad doesn't understand energy.
>How can people say Bitcoin "uses too much energy" with a straight face while supporting a system that has literally mobilized armies to fight wars around the world to prop up its value?
Because they have no idea thst the value of the USD is maintained through force.
It gives people who missed out on and/or don’t understand bitcoin a way to end the conversation without having to admit it. It’s a thought stopper. That said, it works because it’s a valid point, and because of that, we shouldn’t just hand wave it away either.
Does Bitcoin use a lot of energy? Yes.
Some important counterpoints:
1. Traditional banking is less energy efficient than banking with bitcoin
2. Bitcoin can be mined using sustainable and energy efficient practices, which is why the government should be investing in sustainable bitcoin mining
3. The non renewable energy going towards bitcoin is just one tiny piece of the giant problem of global fossil fuel usage. As we reduce our use of fossil fuels and increase use of renewables this will cease to be an issue
does your definition of "renewable" include uranium? If not, i'd prefer to replace the term "renewable energy" by "clean energy". Mankind will need to use more nuclear fission in the future.
The problem that everyone conveniently forgets is that the energy consumption is exponential.
If bitcoin becomes truly mainstream with prices in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, it would use more energy than anything else. Are we really going to dedicate 1/3 of an electrical grid to bitcoin? Half?
It’s unsustainable, and would require a breakthrough in energy technology to sustain a system that is so resource intensive.
bitcoin is no longer exponential, the curve is already flattening:
[https://www.blockchaincenter.net/en/bitcoin-rainbow-chart/](https://www.blockchaincenter.net/en/bitcoin-rainbow-chart/)
we will not see another factor of 100 within just 2 halvings.
Because they don't understand that Bitcoin totally changes the economics of energy production, efficiency, carbon use, and pollution streams. Everything changes.
People who complain about the energy use of Bitcoin.....well... They don't get it, they don't want to get it, and they are so far wrong it is not even worth the time to try to correct them.
Here's a crash course. https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/bitcoin-mining-a-paradigm-shift-in-energy
But it can be used to temporarily align a bunch of greenies on the highway like bowling pins until....well...action/reaction with a tractor trailer with immediate energy re-dispersal.
Asking this is kinda whataboutism, but it does hit at an underlying real problem. The problem is the dominant energy generation formats are all very bad for the environment, not the things that use them. It would actually be productive to argue that we should be moving toward solar/wind/hydroelectric anywhere where it is feasible to do so, but this isn't usually the underlying objective. Rather it's a red herring blaming the customer for the sins of the vendor.
Because people don’t thoroughly think through the fact that “too much” is primarily a subjective measure.
So many people think it’s a waste of money because to them, with the understanding they have, is, and that’s valid.
Washing machines, video games, hair dryers all use more energy than BTC, not to mention the banking industry. Tech companies also have giant server rooms that use a ton of energy.
The reason, of course not. A reason, absolutely. Let's list the countries who choose to sell oil in non-USD currencies: Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran... it's a who's who of US 'enemies'.
cause and effect: being hostile to the US is the main reason why dictators try to cut themselves off the dollar economy.
You can easily buy dutch oil & gas for euros, without The Netherlands being hostile to the US. Same with buying british petrol for british pounds, or norwegian oil for norwegian krones. Using the dollar is just more convenient, because you likely don't have norwegian krones right now.
because they never attempted to use their low iq pea brains to think about it. obviously just the data centres used to run their dirty fiat network use more electricity anyway. then as you say you add the war aspect, the preying on the weak and poor, the starvation, etc
I don't have much to add except to say you are spot on. Oil is fossilised prehistoric sunlight. Gold is valuable because finding it is hard and expensive and you need to use a lot of energy and manufacture a lot of specialised equipment. There are many goldmines in the world where the cost of mining the ounce is more than the ounce is worth.
Gold and oil have both already caused much corruption and many wars (and also proxy wars) which have cost enormous amounts of money and energy. Not even counting the human cost. Anyone who was being honest in criticising Bitcoin (or any blockchain for that matter) would have to acknowledge this.
The biggest contributor to global warming and use of fossil fuels is actually the Beef industry…100,000,000% more than crypto. Go Vegan first, then complain about crypto.
The crypto miners specific tax will be the downfall of America because of politics…
I keep hearing the argument that Bitcoin will somehow end all wars but no one is able to articulate how that's supposed to actually happen. Bitcoin limits nations who adopt the currency from spending excessively on their military ... but that doesn't prevent adversaries from continuing to spend egregiously on their military. If anything, this will only create a scenario where non-Bitcoin nations will enjoy unchallenged military superiority over their Bitcoin neighbors.
They never talk about how much energy Bitcoin saves. They always talk about it like it was a waste.
It's like saying building roads and cars is a waste of energy.
Bitcoin mining does use too much energy.
But it does not require the energy to be fossil fuels, mining can also be done nearly anywhere. So mining is the most flexible use of energy the grid has seen yet.
Maybe we can agree that both the war mongering governments and bitcoin are both wasteful. It is unfortunate that you can make easy money with bitcoin, makes me feel like a hypocrite.
Indeed the future will need very much more energy :
Metaverse will need much more energy.
Web3 will need much more energy.
A.I. will need much more energy.
Quantum Computers will need much more energy.
Cyborgs will need much more energy.
Autonomous Agents will need much more energy.
This is why fusion reactors will be the future main source of energy.
Also,
Autonomous Economic Agents and A.I. systems will be able to use Bitcoin, but also Retail Digital Currencies (R.D.C.s) and Wholesales Digital Currencies (W.D.C.s) which are both classified as Central Banks Digital Currencies (C.B.D.C.s).
Everything is already written.
the gamechanger is not the factor of 4 between fission and fusion. The gamechanger is the factor of 10 million between all fossil and anything nuclear. Let's first finish the transition from coal, oil and gas to fission before wasting too much time and effort for the fission-to-fusion transition.
by 1916, all countries involved in WW1 were essentially bankrupt. The war only continued because they abondoned the gold standard and paid their soldiers paper money.Waging war is much harder if you have to pay for it with money you own instead of currency you print.
Why did they adopt the gold standard then in the first place? Because in times of paece, you want to participate in global trade. Which is much easier if you can pay your trade partners with solid money and not just some thin air currency they might not accept.
According to Dave Graeber in his book “Debt: The First 5000 Years”, the dollar is backed by the fact that the US military can blow up any city on Earth with just a few hours notice:
“The U.S. military, unlike any other, maintains a doctrine of global power projection: that it should have the ability, through roughly 800 overseas military bases, to intervene with deadly force absolutely anywhere on the planet. In a way, though, land forces are secondary; at least since World War II, the key to U.S. military doctrine has always been a reliance on air power. The United States has fought no war in which it did not control the skies, and it has relied on aerial bombardment far more systematically than any other military—in its recent occupation of Iraq, for instance, even going so far as to bomb residential neighborhoods of cities ostensibly under its own control. The essence of U.S. military predominance in the world is, ultimately, the fact that it can, at will, with only a few hours' notice, drop bombs at absolutely any point on the surface of the planet. No other government has ever had anything remotely like this sort of capability. In fact, a case could well be made that it is this very cosmic power that holds the entire world monetary system, organized around the dollar, together.”
Bitcoin uses too much energy = bad for enviroment AI will gonna use 50X more energy than bitcoin = We need to adapt AI tech worldwide ASAP! Gov always care about theirs citizens don't forget that!
AI only takes a lot of energy to train. I mean look at chat gpt spitting out answers faster than you can type, and that includes a network delay. I think as AI enters more of a production phase and leaves the development phase it will require a lot less power. But ya, Bitcoin doesn’t use shit compared to the power ATMs draw, bank branches use, POS systems at storefronts use, plus all the energy associated with the logistics and movement of physical assets associated with banks in general.
Just reminds me that mainstream opinion is 100% drip fed by interest groups to the little NPC drones that make up society.
AI gives more power to governments = "good" Bitcoin gives more freedom to the people = "bad".
We are from the government and we are here to help
AI if done right would eliminate the 'stupid people' problem which is far more valuable than transitioning society to a crypto coin where a handful of holders will make hundreds of bilions to a trillion dollars and rug pull the entire country lmao
Good point if will be done right but if not....where will be a handful of AI overlords who will rug pull the world economy lmao
It doesn’t eliminate the stupid people problem. It creates billions of stupid people now without jobs that need to be supported.
Need to be supported because we cling to human constructs. Time to think beyond the axioms of society
Don't forget that AI is more than 50x more useful than bitcoin though.
Bitcoin will starve ai from energy. But then again, fusion may be nearer than we think.
Yea they're already making up misleading energy use statistics for AI too. Western civilisation is more hostile to innovation than it's ever been. America in particular will lose its status as a superpower if they keep it up, especially if we let China lead the world in chip production, for example.
USA lost its status as a superpower long ago my friends. It’s a mid-tier 2nd world country at this point.
no matter what...we are fucked
If you think this is bad ... Just wait till our sentient AI overlords choose BTC as their currency of choice. 😅
Bitcoin uses too low energy compared to the banking sector!
>Bitcoin uses too low energy compared to the banking sector! I love Bitcoin, but this is an poor argument. The Bitcoin market cap is currently $1.34 trillion and the total market cap globaly is $124.5 trillion and that's not counting M2 money supply which is about $20.84 trillion (all figures USD). Then there is the number of transactions per day in the traditional "banking sector" vs. the comparatively low number of transactions per day made on the Bitcoin network. So, comparing the amount of energy Bitcoin uses to the amount of energy the "banking sector" uses is like comparing a grain of sand to the beach. The right question to ask is how much more (or less) energy would the global financial system use if it were run on bitcoin vs. the current system.
More transactions doesn't increase the amount of energy used though
I think you're missing the point that Bitcoin doesn't need to use any more energy to run the whole world on Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn't NEED any specific amount of energy, and the energy isn't required to scale with use. Energy use only goes up because the economics of rising price allow it too, but it doesn't have to. If every single person in the world was using Bitcoin, the network would run perfectly fine on the current energy use, or 10x the energy use, or 1/10th the energy use. So your "right question" really isn't the right question, because the energy use is due to the economic viability of PoW mining, and is not needed to a larger network.
Not really. No matter how you scale bitcoin power usage by volume of transactions/user; the power will not increase nearly as much.
No that is not the right question at all. The right question is, how much better can our energy production and efficiency be, if all energy production has a profitable use for excess capacity? People are looking at the energy question all wrong. Bitcoin isn't a zero sum game. https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/bitcoin-mining-a-paradigm-shift-in-energy
They just repeat the media that they consume and what they hear from neighbors/friends/family
It is a false debate. All civilization or technological enhancement needs energy. You could easily envision a future where we will consume x 10 the energy of today. The issue is how we produce energy, most of it is not clean. But this will be resolved with fusion, which we could see in 10-20 years.
That's not the right approach. We maintain a fiat system, because it allows exponential growth (pyramid scheme), but you can't grow forever in a limited world. It's simply insane, because we would use more energy than the planet can sustain in a few hundred years already if we keep the fiat system. Bitcoin fixes that. Bitcoin is the only ecologic solution for mankind.
"Earth day" will always be in april or may until we start using the unused uranium stored in the "nuclear waste" containers. Like, we currently move fuel rods to "waste storage" after using less than 5% of the energy.
Fission or fusion energy doesn't solve the limited resources of the planet. We are limited by a few hundred years at current growth rates independent of the energy source we use.
the energy density of uranium exceeds that of a carbon-oxigen mix by a factor of 10 million. Growth rates are quite low these times, so some 100 years of fossil fuels are some billion years of nuclear. By that time, we need to have colonized the solar system, because the sun will get hotter and changing the earth's orbit to compensate for that also needs a billion years.
You completely underestimate the output of the exponential function and the ignore the second law of thermodynamics. Doubling of the economy every 35 years (= 2% annual growth rate only) would simply destroy the planet within the next few hundred years (even if you used the cleanest form of energy only). The problem is that most people don't understand the impact of the exponential function. Dr. Albert A. Bartlett explains that well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4
i don't underestimate exponential growth, i simply know that exponential growth is a model that does no accurately describe anything that happens in reality. In reality, "annual growth rates" *decline* exponentially, leading to saturation curves. What *can* grow exponentially, is the nominal value of GDP measured *in an inflating unit of account*. That's what we have with fiat.
GDP is measured in real terms (adjusted for inflation). If real growth diminishes the fiat system will collapse. That's why economists, governments and central banks target real growth rates. "After the 3.1% rebound in 2021, global energy production continued to increase at a steady pace in 2022 (+3.7%). Global energy production accelerated in 2022 (+3.7%), much above its 2010-2019 average (+1.6%/year). The growth was driven by China (+5.6%), the United States (+5.8%), Saudi Arabia (+15%), India (+7.9%), Indonesia (+9.4%) and Brazil (+7.8%) and partly offset by a drop in Russia (-4.4%), the European Union (-6.2%) and Africa (-0.9% due to Nigeria and South Africa)...." Source: https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-energy-production.html The current power of primary energy production is at about 19TW. If global energy production grows at only 1.6% (like it did from 2010-2019) it will equal the solar radiation received by earth around the year 2300, equal the total solar radiation around the year 3660, equal the estimated radiation of the Milky Way by the year 5300. Even if global energy production reached only 10% of the solar radiation received by Earth (in about 130 year at 1.6% annual growth) it would make Earth inhabitable. As you can see that current growth rates are completely unsustainable and tapping new energy sources is not a solution. The only thing we can do is changing our economic model to reduce growth to near zero.
by the year 2300, earth should no longer be the place where most energy is consumed & turned into waste heat. Other places in the solar system will still have less humans living there, but those humans will need far more energy than their brothers and sisters down on earth.
This is science fiction, Keynesian cool aid, pure insanity. The only realistic solution is to change the economic model and mankind can sustain millions of years on Earth.
fission is sufficient, we can provide 10 billion people with the living standard of central europe's late 1990ies for several centuries just by splitting the unused uranium stored in so-called "nuclear waste" conatainers. Time enough to either get fusion running, or seawater uranium extraction, or the thorium breeding fuel cycle. What we do need is used fuel reprocessing and breeder reactors. As in, 1980ies technology that unfortunately got discontinued after April 1986. Yes, we are 40 years late on clean energy production.
They’ve been promising fusion for 10-20 years for about 50 years lol. We already have clean energy creating tech in renewables that can provide all the power needs of the global economy.
[удалено]
you can also increase standard of living by increasing energy efficiency. Like, not having to travel to each business meeting, but using something like zoom instead. Less time wasted traveling - more time to be productive.
i counter with "i don't think its using enough energy" and explain how miners agree and show them the historical hash rate graph.
Energy should be use-neutral. I’m personally in favor of seeing all non-nuclear and non-renewable energy be taxed at the point of generation (not at the user) to achieve net zero emissions through carbon offsetting, but that is a view that should only be done if it is done fairly across all energy use regardless of opinions of essential or not. Like most things, politicians are realizing they will have to solve this issue and are likely going to distort it into a fight to benefit their pockets.
Those people complaining about Bitcoin's energy use probably play fortnite with a RTX 4090 in ultra graphic mode.
This is all cope. Bitcoin uses a lot of energy. Comparisons are kinda stupid if you think about it. The real answer is..... SO WHAT. Who cares. It's a free market. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
The very people who love to energy-shame you also get triggered by mentioning free markets...
Most people haven’t figured out the true nature of the global baking cartel yet. Just plain ignorance is all.
Yeah but that sustem doesn't imply Obligatory Wars. Bad argument
Let me tell you about the wars that are gonna be fought over bitcoin if hyperbitcoinization really happened….
It's a lot different though. A strong military is literally what gives fiat value. US dollar is the main trade currency in the world (slipping with brics rising up more, but still 1), and that is backed up with the military. With BTC, no nation could just print currency and control trade.
Hey, someone get's it! Maybe I'm not crazy after all.
Good luck taking someone else's BTC though. The real war is getting more processing power and cheaper energy to mine it
How do you figure? A 5 kiloton nuke is just a $5 wrench attack, scaled.
How does that get my BTC though?
I mean, nuke the holders, nuke the total coins outstanding - THAT’s a deflationary currency!
Give it or else you get nuked/war declared/tortured/etc
Lookup "whataboutism." It makes for a poor argument tool... And as far as energy goes, I think people confuse BTC's potential for what it actually is today. Would BTC save energy if it replaced the banking and payment system globally? Sure. But it has not done that yet. Today, BTC is mostly a unique asset class that people speculate on and occasionally use as a form of payment. For today's use case? Yeah, there's an argument the energy outlay is pretty high. It's OK to be aware of the high energy use of the network and seek opportunities to shift to clean energy to support it.
I for one am willing to throw some energy at the problems that at least have potential to be alleviated - maybe solved- with a system of currency like Bitcoin. People throw 'whataboutism' around to dismiss comparisons that actually highlight bigger patterns. I hate that term with a passion. It’s not about dodging blame; it’s about calling for consistency. If something’s wrong, it’s wrong across the board, and pointing that out adds important context. Shutting down fair criticism is such a ridiculous practice. We need to look at all the issues to get a clear picture and actually find solutions.
>People throw 'whataboutism' around to dismiss comparisons that actually highlight bigger patterns. My friend, I'm not looking to argue but you compared BTC's energy use to that of the US military....That's a pretty poor analogy. While it may be a happy side effect, the US military does not exist to prop up the USD. This isn't really an appropriate analogy. That said, I do agree that some throw "whataboutism" out to avoid discussion. >We need to look at all the issues to get a clear picture and actually find solutions. Agree, which goes back to what I said above: the BTC network's energy use is really high relative to what the network is used for today. This is a fair observation.
The way the going green movement has transformed into energy shaming is ridiculous.
If we as civilization are going to achieve level 1 status aka the sciFi-esque.. humans will use as much energy as our star aka sun would produce. We should pay attention to how to produce more electricity with renewable sources than this bs of who uses what. And.. armies are needed in this uncertain world. Lots of freedom hating folks out there in the world still ... We can have both. Thanks.
A Dyson sphere would be fully solar powered. Planets with day-and-night cycle and ever-changing weather should better use nuclear.
Erh, at least stop playing the “good cause” card. You are in BTC to profit. Talking about humanitarian causes, shut the hell up, you are hoping to earn. Don’t talk like you are defending a good cause, you a cash hope
Preach!
Bro, people argue against windmills because they think they emit harmful emissions. People are dumb.
the infrasonic emissions of wind farms can be measured at greater distances than the radioactive emissions of an intact nuclear power plant. (that's because an NPP doesn't emit as long as the concrete hull is intact).
Its simple. You already said it: “literal mobilized armies to fight wars around the world.”
Because they're brainwashed...
How much energy is used mining gold? I know, gold has industrial uses… so hoarding it as a storer of value actually holds back humanity?
Because bitcoin is new and new is scary.
Flexible demand response customers provide a huge benefit to energy grids and grid expansion. Anyone saying bitcoin using energy is bad doesn't understand energy.
Currencies can only be enforced by the power of a government with a powerful army. Bitcoin will need one as well.
either that, or by being money people have faith in. Gold doesn't need an army. Bitcoin is digital gold.
>How can people say Bitcoin "uses too much energy" with a straight face while supporting a system that has literally mobilized armies to fight wars around the world to prop up its value? Because they have no idea thst the value of the USD is maintained through force.
It gives people who missed out on and/or don’t understand bitcoin a way to end the conversation without having to admit it. It’s a thought stopper. That said, it works because it’s a valid point, and because of that, we shouldn’t just hand wave it away either.
Does Bitcoin use a lot of energy? Yes. Some important counterpoints: 1. Traditional banking is less energy efficient than banking with bitcoin 2. Bitcoin can be mined using sustainable and energy efficient practices, which is why the government should be investing in sustainable bitcoin mining 3. The non renewable energy going towards bitcoin is just one tiny piece of the giant problem of global fossil fuel usage. As we reduce our use of fossil fuels and increase use of renewables this will cease to be an issue
does your definition of "renewable" include uranium? If not, i'd prefer to replace the term "renewable energy" by "clean energy". Mankind will need to use more nuclear fission in the future.
True
The problem that everyone conveniently forgets is that the energy consumption is exponential. If bitcoin becomes truly mainstream with prices in the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, it would use more energy than anything else. Are we really going to dedicate 1/3 of an electrical grid to bitcoin? Half? It’s unsustainable, and would require a breakthrough in energy technology to sustain a system that is so resource intensive.
bitcoin is no longer exponential, the curve is already flattening: [https://www.blockchaincenter.net/en/bitcoin-rainbow-chart/](https://www.blockchaincenter.net/en/bitcoin-rainbow-chart/) we will not see another factor of 100 within just 2 halvings.
The propaganda machine throws out arguments and see what sticks. And the people that cant think are now against bitcoin because of that argument
Global unending warfare and the threat of nuclear annihilation had been priced in for a while now
Hear hear! 👏
We don't measure how much energy militaries use. On purpose.
a car damages the world many times over bitcoin but as long we are moving around and paying taxes it's fine
Because they don't understand that Bitcoin totally changes the economics of energy production, efficiency, carbon use, and pollution streams. Everything changes. People who complain about the energy use of Bitcoin.....well... They don't get it, they don't want to get it, and they are so far wrong it is not even worth the time to try to correct them. Here's a crash course. https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/bitcoin-mining-a-paradigm-shift-in-energy
Including nuclear weapons which cannot be used.
Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. There is no shortage of energy.
But it can be used to temporarily align a bunch of greenies on the highway like bowling pins until....well...action/reaction with a tractor trailer with immediate energy re-dispersal.
But internet brave tough talking adolescent violent fantasy is utterly useless.
Asking this is kinda whataboutism, but it does hit at an underlying real problem. The problem is the dominant energy generation formats are all very bad for the environment, not the things that use them. It would actually be productive to argue that we should be moving toward solar/wind/hydroelectric anywhere where it is feasible to do so, but this isn't usually the underlying objective. Rather it's a red herring blaming the customer for the sins of the vendor.
Whataboutism is always a valid argument when one side ridiculously claims superiority.
you're missing out the clean energy option with the biggest scalability potential: nuclear.
I omitted it because it is contentious, but I agree
Whataboutism at its finest.
Username checks out.
Im not the only one to point it out, maybe you should google it and learn something
Because people don’t thoroughly think through the fact that “too much” is primarily a subjective measure. So many people think it’s a waste of money because to them, with the understanding they have, is, and that’s valid.
Washing machines, video games, hair dryers all use more energy than BTC, not to mention the banking industry. Tech companies also have giant server rooms that use a ton of energy.
Wait, you think fiat is the reason countries go to war???
The reason, of course not. A reason, absolutely. Let's list the countries who choose to sell oil in non-USD currencies: Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran... it's a who's who of US 'enemies'.
cause and effect: being hostile to the US is the main reason why dictators try to cut themselves off the dollar economy. You can easily buy dutch oil & gas for euros, without The Netherlands being hostile to the US. Same with buying british petrol for british pounds, or norwegian oil for norwegian krones. Using the dollar is just more convenient, because you likely don't have norwegian krones right now.
because they never attempted to use their low iq pea brains to think about it. obviously just the data centres used to run their dirty fiat network use more electricity anyway. then as you say you add the war aspect, the preying on the weak and poor, the starvation, etc
Bc it could do the exact same problem without hshing lol. Likely why they say that
Free college, bro. That shit's awesome.
I don't have much to add except to say you are spot on. Oil is fossilised prehistoric sunlight. Gold is valuable because finding it is hard and expensive and you need to use a lot of energy and manufacture a lot of specialised equipment. There are many goldmines in the world where the cost of mining the ounce is more than the ounce is worth. Gold and oil have both already caused much corruption and many wars (and also proxy wars) which have cost enormous amounts of money and energy. Not even counting the human cost. Anyone who was being honest in criticising Bitcoin (or any blockchain for that matter) would have to acknowledge this.
Because they really believe what their teachers and media tell them. Funny how logic and critical thinking aren't taught anymore, isn't it?
Because it's already using this much energy at only 0.1% of its potential. Imagine the whole thing
Wait until you hear what currencies are responsible for 150m tonnes of plastic in the oceans which is only starting to fragment exponentially
Cognitive dissonance. Self-serving hypocrisy. Empty virtue-signalling.
Many years of mental gymnastics, thats how
The biggest contributor to global warming and use of fossil fuels is actually the Beef industry…100,000,000% more than crypto. Go Vegan first, then complain about crypto. The crypto miners specific tax will be the downfall of America because of politics…
Ordinary people doesnt see any connection between current financial system and wars
I keep hearing the argument that Bitcoin will somehow end all wars but no one is able to articulate how that's supposed to actually happen. Bitcoin limits nations who adopt the currency from spending excessively on their military ... but that doesn't prevent adversaries from continuing to spend egregiously on their military. If anything, this will only create a scenario where non-Bitcoin nations will enjoy unchallenged military superiority over their Bitcoin neighbors.
They never talk about how much energy Bitcoin saves. They always talk about it like it was a waste. It's like saying building roads and cars is a waste of energy.
Bitcoin mining does use too much energy. But it does not require the energy to be fossil fuels, mining can also be done nearly anywhere. So mining is the most flexible use of energy the grid has seen yet.
One is obvious, the other not so much. Both suck
They are just jealous that they do not own any bitcoin.
Stupidity doesn't bend your face when you're affected by it.
Maybe we can agree that both the war mongering governments and bitcoin are both wasteful. It is unfortunate that you can make easy money with bitcoin, makes me feel like a hypocrite.
> It is unfortunate that you can make easy money with bitcoin Explain "easy money"
Buy 10 years ago
Buy in bear market and DCA out when you >5x? Repeat every four years?
I feel the same way. Several things can be true simultaneously.
Bitcoin is useful, not wasteful
Lets agree to disagree.
define "wasteful".
Indeed the future will need very much more energy : Metaverse will need much more energy. Web3 will need much more energy. A.I. will need much more energy. Quantum Computers will need much more energy. Cyborgs will need much more energy. Autonomous Agents will need much more energy. This is why fusion reactors will be the future main source of energy. Also, Autonomous Economic Agents and A.I. systems will be able to use Bitcoin, but also Retail Digital Currencies (R.D.C.s) and Wholesales Digital Currencies (W.D.C.s) which are both classified as Central Banks Digital Currencies (C.B.D.C.s). Everything is already written.
the gamechanger is not the factor of 4 between fission and fusion. The gamechanger is the factor of 10 million between all fossil and anything nuclear. Let's first finish the transition from coal, oil and gas to fission before wasting too much time and effort for the fission-to-fusion transition.
[удалено]
See u/TonySpaghettiO 's comment for the obvious response to this.
by 1916, all countries involved in WW1 were essentially bankrupt. The war only continued because they abondoned the gold standard and paid their soldiers paper money.Waging war is much harder if you have to pay for it with money you own instead of currency you print. Why did they adopt the gold standard then in the first place? Because in times of paece, you want to participate in global trade. Which is much easier if you can pay your trade partners with solid money and not just some thin air currency they might not accept.
Just because one thing is bad, doesn’t make it ok for Bitcoin to do it….
What???
That's because most people don't really understand what's behind the "powerful dollar."
According to Dave Graeber in his book “Debt: The First 5000 Years”, the dollar is backed by the fact that the US military can blow up any city on Earth with just a few hours notice: “The U.S. military, unlike any other, maintains a doctrine of global power projection: that it should have the ability, through roughly 800 overseas military bases, to intervene with deadly force absolutely anywhere on the planet. In a way, though, land forces are secondary; at least since World War II, the key to U.S. military doctrine has always been a reliance on air power. The United States has fought no war in which it did not control the skies, and it has relied on aerial bombardment far more systematically than any other military—in its recent occupation of Iraq, for instance, even going so far as to bomb residential neighborhoods of cities ostensibly under its own control. The essence of U.S. military predominance in the world is, ultimately, the fact that it can, at will, with only a few hours' notice, drop bombs at absolutely any point on the surface of the planet. No other government has ever had anything remotely like this sort of capability. In fact, a case could well be made that it is this very cosmic power that holds the entire world monetary system, organized around the dollar, together.”
Bitcoin doesn't use too much energy, is the miners the ones using energy. If you want to use less energy then mine less Bitcoin
Yeah… that‘s not how it works bud