You're right, it is the CO2 emissions, but they're effectively unavoidable. We do not have enough renewable energy sources built right now to support even the current load. Additional load means dirty power plants stay online longer as we wait for enough green energy sources to come online.

Even if all the miners were running on entirely green energy, there's an opportunity cost. That green energy could be used to power homes and we could shut down coal power plants. I don't care that you bought 9,000 solar panels to power your mining farm, because that's 9,000 solar panels that could have been hooked up to the grid.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade. I find cryptocurrencies interesting and would like for them to exist, but we're in a terrible position to be pissing away electricity right now. In the scheme of ways to use electricity, Bitcoin is a pretty frivolous use too. The electricity consumption is just so outsized compared to the actual physical gain (and I'm not talking about money made from speculating).

If I were the ruler of the world, I'd give it a transaction tax that was proportional to the percentage of load generation that isn't renewable. If 40% of our energy is still dirty, then there's a 40% transaction tax. If we can get that down to 5%, then there's only a 5% tax. I don't see a reason to ban them, we just need to cut power consumption and thus CO2 emissions wherever we can.

Sure, and this is all true even if cryptocurrencies didn't exist. I'm old enough to remember the days before Bitcoin, where there was similar pearl-clutching about cloud computing.

I'm calling for people to separate the problem of CO2 emissions from moral arguments about the nature of downstream electricity consumption. Mother Nature doesn't give a single flying f*ck about our moralizing; the CO2 emissions are just as bad either way.

> Calm down.

FYI this is the worst thing one can say during a discussion. The effect, regardless of intent, is always to annoy the other.

> The effect, regardless of intent, is always to annoy the other.

Combined with the further-down "Here, let me Google that for you.", it seems likely that that was the intended effect. It's pretty clear that negative value to the discussion was provided by both comments, in addition to the (subjective) dismissive attitude.

Perhaps this is just a difference in interpersonal communication styles, but if I were so chided in either case, I would have at least taken it to heart. Like, I don't ask questions whose answers can be Googled; I personally find it morally repugnant -- offensive even -- to ask a human to do a machine's job.

The problem at hand is that CO2 emissions exist and must be curtailed. This thread comes from a certain individual's repeated refusal to separate addressing electricity generation's CO2 emissions from moralistic opinions about the downstream use of that electricity. As if Mother Nature cared about our moralizing.

But thanks anyway for the tone-policing. Really adds to the discussion.

You didn’t answer their question. Can you quantify what things pollute more?

Here, let me Google that for you.

First, let's assume for a moment that this February 2021 CNBC source [1] is correct in that Bitcoin mining produces 36.94 megatons of CO2 per year. The original source the CNBC article cited can be found here: [3] (which currently pegs Bitcoin at 47.62 megatons/year).

According to the EPA, the US economy alone produced 6,558 megatons of CO2 [2] in 2019 (i.e. under pre-COVID emissions).

So, Bitcoin's CO2 annualized output as of February 2021 was 0.5% of the US economy's CO2 output from 2 years ago.

This works out to be:

* 5.6% of the US agricultural sector emissions, OR

* 4.3% of US commercial and residential building emissions (heating, cooling, waste), OR

* 2.4% of the US manufacturing industry, OR

* 2.2% of all US electricity generation, OR

* 1.9% of all US transportation emissions

According to this article from 2016 published in Environmental Research Letters [4], the US could save a combined 110 megatons of CO2 emissions simply by using better building insulation, since it would reduce heating/cooling energy expenditure. That's about 3x the Bitcoin CO2 emission rate I quoted above.

So, @SwimSwimHungry, I'll ask once again: why the outrage over cryptocurrencies? Can I expect you to have 3x the outrage over bad building insulation?

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bitcoin-btc-surge-renews-wor...

[2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...

[3] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

[4] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/03...

My response to you is quite simple. Unlike virtually every other technology that's been created (like computers, cars, smartphones, etc), Bitcoin simply exists in a form where the primary purpose is to waste energy, and the system inherently incentivizes it.

Also, the issue of bad building insulation does not in any manner invalidate my concern with the growing problem of Bitcoin now and in the future. Bad building insulation can also be fixed relatively easily, and the incentive for a fix would be an energy cost savings to the property owner. Bitcoin is the exact opposite of this. In order for the network to remain secure, it must burn copious amounts of energy.

That is my general outrage summarized there. And that doesn't even begin my issues pertaining to lack of user friendliness surrounding cryptocurrencies (not your keys, not your coins), how it suckers people into something they don't fully understand (people see $$$ and throw money at it without quantifying the proper risks - see the crashes from 2013 and 2017 and all the run on exchanges that left people empty handed), the absolutely awful existence of ransomware, and the constant tape painting with tethers (which by the way, we still can't get a proper audit on them and they are just about as opaque as the Fed is with regards to the Federal Reserve).

I believe I've made my points at this juncture. We may have to simply agree to disagree otherwise.

> I believe I've made my points at this juncture.

Very badly. Not saying your wrong, just that you're really bad at arguing.

You asked a question "Can you quantify what things pollute more?" and when the other guy gave you a list, you responded by saying it doesn't matter as the important thing is the purpose of the pollution.

Unless it just occured to you between typing the two responses that some types of pollution are the result of more useful work tha others, that is some bad faith argumentation. Asking a question you think is irrelavent just so you can later move the goal posts, is just silly.

Fine. I may not be the best at arguing, and to be fair, being really good at debate and arguing points effectively takes tons of time and practice. I will make mistakes with my presentation, but the kernel of what I speak of is still unchanged.

I have no delusions of grandeur about convincing those entrenched in specific camps over to my side. Just the hope that those who are watching from the sidelines can see what I'm saying and hopefully they can take something away from it that is helpful and productive.

To the list of polluting concerns, I didn't say that it "doesn't matter", and that seems to be putting words in my mouth, if I'm being honest. In fact, to his point on building insulation, I noted that there can in fact be an incentive to correct this with a net savings, and we can encourage those around us to make such corrections wherever it is in their power to do so. Bitcoin from my view incentivizes the opposite kind of behavior. That's what I'm hopefully trying to get across.

I don't expect you to agree with my positions, but hopefully to at least understand my perspective.

> Bitcoin simply exists in a form where the primary purpose is to waste energy,

That's just your moral judgement. The people who use and make a living off of Bitcoin certainly don't see it as a waste.

> In order for the network to remain secure, it must burn copious amounts of energy.

First, this does not preclude PoW from existing in a world powered 100% renewable energy. Second, I've already outlined a way to economically penalize PoW miners for using fossil fuels here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829269.

Please do not make the mistake of believing that your (rightful) concerns about CO2 emissions from PoW are being overlooked, and please do not make the mistake of thinking that they cannot be addressed. PoW does not require burning fossil fuels to work.

Look, I'll just say right here I do believe your heart is in the right place and you want there to be an alternative to the government run and controlled fiat. That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as a proper hedge.

Also, to your point about greenifying Bitcoin, I just believe the assumption that bitcoin will just move over 100% to green energy sources is naive at best, and considering that is energy that isn't being used for activities I would argue as more productive (like powering homes, schools, electric cars), I just feel that it's a real opportunity loss.

I just think it's not as likely to happen. Maybe if nuclear power really starts to take off again, there might be hope, as the sheer amount of Gigawatts that such plants can produce could easily outpace other green energy technologies. Sadly we have some anti-nuclear sentiment that blocks progress in building new plants quickly.

> you want there to be an alternative to the government run and controlled fiat.

I, uh, never said that. I don't see Bitcoin as a currency at all.

> That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as a proper hedge.

No thank you. Gold-mining is way more ecologically disastrous. If Bitcoin replaces gold, the environment will be better off for it -- at least you can mine Bitcoin with nothing more than solar panels and wind farms.

> I just believe the assumption that bitcoin will just move over 100% to green energy sources is naive at best

One way or another, the world is going to need to move all its energy production to 100% renewables, or humanity is going to be in for a world of hurt. But, this is true with or without cryptocurrencies.

>I, uh, never said that. I don't see Bitcoin as a currency at all.

I stand corrected.

>No thank you. Gold-mining is way more ecologically disastrous. If Bitcoin replaces gold, the environment will be better off for it -- at least you can mine Bitcoin with nothing more than solar panels and wind farms.

Well there's just one problem. You need gold as a component in the creation of systems that mine bitcoin. Oops! So we are kinda stuck with gold mining, which we need to do, just so bitcoin can be mined, which we don't have to do. With that in mind, why not just skip to just straight up owning gold?

>One way or another, the world is going to need to move all its energy production to 100% renewables, or humanity is going to be in for a world of hurt. But, this is true with or without cryptocurrencies.

On this point, I hope you are right. We do need to get off of coal and gas as soon as we can.

>That said, gold technically exists already to meet this in my humble opinion as a proper hedge.

Moving gold from one country to another country on your is difficult.

Storing gold properly without getting robbed is difficult.

Try moving $5million dollar worth gold and you'll realize the advantage which bitcoin brings.

> Try moving $5million dollar worth gold

If I read the price correctly that would be something like 80kg. I can't be bothered to dig deeper, but that would be just a few gold bars, I suspect. Not very hard to handle, IMO...

Except you will be robbed in a second.

Bitcoin does something very important which creating something that people trust without someone in background diluting value of your holdings. If that takes a lot to achieve in terms of energy well it speaks volumes about the society we live in

So if something really harmful speaks volumes that is ok?

I'd like to add electronics on standby to your list ("could be as high as 10% of total energy use"):

• https://www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/climate-change/ene...

As I've tried to argue with others before: I doubt climate change and energy waste are at the top of the agenda of these people so wound up against Bitcoin's energy waste otherwise we'd see a lot more people

• switching to a vegetarian, let alone vegan, diet

• using a bike instead of car for doing groceries

• taking the train instead of a plane for holidays

• voting for radical green parties

• unplug their fucking electronics

I do all that

Last time I checked standby power consumption only in the US was an order of magnitude higher than Bitcoin mining all around the world, but it's hard to estimate the emissions of the latter due to its decentralised nature.

Sealioning.

Oh boy, someone on the Internet wants me to calm down because I point out that they are making a lazy point. Sheesh, tough crowd!

Whether you realize it or not, you can want to not burn fossil fuels, but if there's a profit to be made doing it, believe me, enough miners will bend their morality to make a profit. You act like everyone involved in this experiment has pure intentions. I'd argue that's untrue.

You'd be a lot more convincing if you weren't in the throes of a hissyfit over something that's 0.5% of the US's total CO2 output in 2019. It's not great, but it's far from the worst problem. Like, bad building insulation in 2016 is responsible for _3x_ the CO2 emissions of Bitcoin _today_.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26829795.

But Bitcoin is only going to continue to grow exponentially and the CO2 emissions by it will easily outpace building insulation problems.

And how is making points to the contrary of yours copping a hissie-fit? I'm just having a disagreement. Not everyone shares your world view.