News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then CO2 emissions soared. Parent comment

Re:Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then C... by jhgb on Friday February 18, 2022 @09:15AM (#30385891)
False dichotomy; they could have done neither. NOT operating an old coal plant NOR building a new plant would have produced zero emissions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then C... by kcplate on Friday February 18, 2022 @09:25PM (#30393867)
Pretty sure the only way to have produced zero emissions was to not mine the bitcoin at all. Old or new plant, or consumption of power from the existing grid would have produced some level of emissions, although Montana tends to have pretty high renewable energy from hydroelectric.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then C... by jhgb on Saturday February 19, 2022 @10:31AM (#30397813)
> the only way to have produced zero emissions was to not mine the bitcoin at all

Yes, obviously. And what's the downside of that?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then C... by kcplate on Saturday February 19, 2022 @10:49AM (#30397940)
> Yes, obviously. And what's the downside of that?

And even more obviously—-Not mining/creating a desired product that would allow you to make a profit on your investment.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Bitcoin miners revived a dying fossil fuel plant – then C... by jhgb on Sunday February 20, 2022 @04:18AM (#30404375)
Not creating novelty waste is not a downside.
[ Parent | on HN ]