(2) using the term 'excess' green energy is a false statement. There is no such thing as excess green energy while a bulk of the grid is still coal/gas/etc.
(3) Bitcoin has led to a drain on GPU availability and in turn on the finite capacity of our semiconductor fabs. Arguably for nothing.
Are you saying transporting and storing electricity is free or easy? Can you source that please? As far as I know many megawatts of electricity go to literal waste every day because it's actually extremely hard to store or transfer.
> power is not free, even green energy. It has production, labor, and material costs
Indeed. And thanks to Bitcoin powerplants can be paid for electricity that will be generated anyways but would go to waste, thus making green energy cheaper.
> Arguably for nothing.
For trustless, quick and reliable transfers of money, which are for example improving the life of many Nigerians.
This is like asking for a source on where 5G was shown not to cause corona. There is a difference between critical thinking and questioning generally accepted statements. You know as well as anyone that energy transportation isn't free or easy, why ask as GP to show that? You're implying that it's more environmentally friendly to build a big power plant in the middle of nowhere, then ship a bunch of ASICs there as well, and then mine bitcoin, rather than just not do that and use the investment money to renewable energy somewhere else. Heck, even if you did build a power plant in the middle of nowhere and intend to ship computers there, why not ship machine learning there?
For example I know that DeepL has megawatts of GPUs for learning for the purposes of translation. There is no latency issue here, they can do this anywhere in the world. It's clearly better to use the energy for these purposes than for mining proofs of work.
No, that's a different argument. Your second point says that, not your first. I just replied to your first.
For the second argument, that's less crazy, but still not true. Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses. And there are still surpluses that are thrown away despite cryptocurrencies using power. Bitcoin doesn't tap into the grid and run only when there is a surplus; virtually all miners run it regardless of the current energy price on wholesale markets. If they didn't, we'd see huge fluctuations in the hash rate and they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that, so apparently it's not being used this way and doesn't fund renewable energy that would otherwise not be built.
> I'm sure they'd happily give that electricity to DeepL too, if they asked.
Oh come on now, that's like arguing that "I'm sure the thief would have given the bike back if asked nicely!" Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here?" I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>".
> Have you ever heard of a power company asking "who has the best purpose for this power that I'm uselessly producing here?
Yes, that's exactly what they ask. Have you actually tried to visit a powerplant and talk to them about this? I did. This is exactly what they ask when they can't find enough demand for their electricity - they need someone to take it, that's why negative electricity rates exist.
> they should match the renewable electricity production closely. It clearly doesn't do that
Geothermals, nuclear, hydro, wind + global network with a huge amount of participants = it's hard to distinguish individual localized factors.
> Electricity thrown away is a very very trivial amount compared to the amount Bitcoin uses.
Not at all. Annualized waste electricity from EU is multiples more than what Bitcoin uses annually. Then we count in China, India, ...
> I've only ever heard "it looks like we'll need more power for <some purpose> soon, therefore we will build <some power plant> in <some place>".
Nobody is building powerplants for Bitcoin (except for very few geothermals) - it's absolutely not profitable. It's much better to put that electricity into the grid for consumer or industrial usage; providing it to Bitcoin miners is done when nobody wants more electricity but they have it anyways.
Until all electricity comes from renewable source, then yes it is.
> The idea that all electricity generation is bad and therefore all electricity usage is bad is completely ridiculous
All _frivolous_ electricity usage is obviously bad.
1) It's not being stored (where they do). In some places they pump water or use other methods, which help to aliviate demand/offer tension when needed.
2) It's actually pushing prices up in the demand side, which means it's making everything else more expensive.
3) If Bitcoin really becomes widely adopted, this problem will increase by who knows how much.
In a setting where we're worried about the impact of our energy pipeline, the use of bitcoins goes the other way around.
I thought it’s mostly mined in China?
Source? I thought it’s mostly mined in China?
Using electricity is not the same as contributing to carbon emissions. Bitcoin is mostly mined in areas overflowing with excess green energy, and thus contributes negligibly to carbon emissions.
The idea that all electricity generation is bad and therefore all electricity usage is bad is completely ridiculous. Instead of working so hard to figure out how to hate on some technology you feel like you missed out on, maybe try understanding it for a minute, and realize the massive net benefits it offers to society.