News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:11AM (#26090166)
> Who investigates and what is the outcome?

The public? Something that benefits a few at the expense of the many is the canonical case for regulation.

(I don’t think we should ban or even really regulate Bitcoin. Not at this point.)

Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by sombremesa on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:15AM (#26090210)
> at the expense of the many

I think you've misunderstood something. Those people are buying their own electricity...at their own expense. So, you want to bring arbitrary restrictions to electricity - as if we didn't have enough issues with net neutrality already.

Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by umanwizard on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:18AM (#26090250)
The market could solve this problem properly if there were a global carbon tax, but unfortunately, there isn't.
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by devlopr on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:27AM (#26090402)
Assuming bitcoin is using carbon poluting sources. Some of the bigger miners in China use hydro/dam energy. The miners in Iceland are using geothermal.
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by dumbfounder on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:32AM (#26090473)
from @umanwizard:

>The market could solve this problem properly if there were a global carbon tax, but unfortunately, there isn't.

"Solve it"? How so? Crypto mining is largely powered by renewables (40% according to one source in Sep 2020). It is a race to find the most energy efficient way create power to make it worthwhile to mine, which has some positive effect on society by driving innovation. No idea if that is a net positive, but this is not black and white issue at all the way many here are framing it.

Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by acdha on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:50AM (#26090756)
> Crypto mining is largely powered by renewables (40% according to one source in Sep 2020).

That’s one source and less than half does not mean “largely” in standard English usage. More importantly, almost nobody uses Bitcoin so a key question would be how that’d change if usage could be scaled up to, say, even 0.1% of daily transactions.

Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by UncleMeat on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @11:47AM (#26091528)
For bitcoin to use an equivalent amount of carbon as visa per transaction, it'd need to be 99.9999% powered by renewables and visa would need to be 100% powered by fossil fuels.
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by beckingz on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:24AM (#26090350)
Except that most of the energy is subsidized by China or other countries.
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by jevgeni on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:26AM (#26090395)
Ah, so they are paying for the adverse effect on the climate. That's alright then. /s
Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by sombremesa on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @10:29AM (#26090437)
We have solar power, hydroelectricity, nuclear power, wind turbines...if the mere fact of electricity existing has an adverse effect on the climate, I can tell you one thing:

It's not bitcoin's fault.

Re:Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index by jevgeni on Wednesday February 10, 2021 @05:11PM (#26095489)
Cool. 63% if electricity still comes from fossil fuels: https://ourworldindata.org/electricity-mix

So, ca. 76 of those TWh/year are still carbon heavy.