No Bitcoin does not need to change its power consumption ways. It literally incentivises the build out of renewable energy. It will fix itself in time.

How does Bitcoin have literal incentives to build out renewable energy? I've heard the claim before, but I'm not following. Doesn't Bitcoin mining just incentivize generating energy in general - green or otherwise?

As a counterpoint: A recent study from Cambridge [0] estimates most of Bitcoins energy consumption still to be from fossil fuels.

[0] https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/insight/2022/a-deep-dive-into-bitc...

It incentivises using the cheapest energy which is renewable. Bitcoin could even be greenhouse negative - just stick a mine on top of every landfill around and you have a recipe to get rid of methane gas. Or on oil fields where they accidentally run into gas pockets.

Looks to me like GHG emissions are going down this year, from that report. I would expect that to continue going forward as more miners are deployed on top of cheap electricity sources :)

Isn't every energy consumer incentivized to use the cheapest available energy source? In case of a landfill, there probably is a city nearby which would benefit from cheap electricity.

Perhaps miners have an advantage over a city in that they can move or disable mining rigs in times when renewables are scarce. But from what I understand Asics are expensive, and running them is big business. Which probably means they will continue running while it is financially feasible, even when a nearby dam runs dry or there is not enough wind or solar to go about.

Not really.

When there's a constant energy source like a flare, it must be used in realtime.

Too much energy is even a problem for the grid (see negative electricity prices that have occurred in, e.g. China).

The only alternative is batteries, which are expensive and have their own problems.

May as well use that energy for securing a neutral public utility financial network/money system.

By the way, check out how much energy the traditional financial systems use:

- Data centers - Trucks/logistics - Security - Military (to secure national currencies such as USD) - etc.

I doubt Bitcoin mining is really suitable to use energy in realtime either. I don't think it makes financial sense to only run your expensive mining equipment during flares. In result the mining will run continuously, and just compete with other energy consumers.

To be honest I know too little about mining costs to dispute this. The Cambridge article about BTC mining using mostly fossils supports my point though. Having said that, I hope you guys are right in Bitcoin mining making energy greener.

One thing that I could say is that bitcoin mining can happen anywhere while typically energy has to be transported to population hubs. I'm not sure I agree that this fact has incentivised much renewables building.

No opinion here, but I think the idea is bitcoin seeks _cheap_ energy which encourages miners to use mass sources of solar/wind energy that are plentiful but in undesirable places like Arizona. Hence, one can conclude that miners are pro-renewables and will invest in their research. \_(ツ)_/¯

I don't see the connection. Energy needs would be better iff without Bitcoin mining.

The connection is that miners seek the cheapest energy out there, which is renewables. Renewables (solar, wind) are highly variable in their output so to get stability you need to deploy A LOT of it (or couple it with for exmaple nuclear, hydro or fossil fuels). Bitcoin can act as a "buyer of last resort" for the producer, thus letting electricity producers build out larger deployments at a lower risk.

Bitcoin mining has a whole host of pretty cool properties that help stabilize the grid as well. Here's a two part article about it: https://braiins.com/blog/bitcoin-mining-the-grid-generators

this is such a blatantly untrue statement, made in good, faith steelmanning it, curiously

How come?

Ironically, the past month has been much worse for Ethereum than Bitcoin, price-wise.

Ethereum has a pricing problem. How do you price an infinite asset that's cheap to produce? Previously you could peg it to the cost of production. Now its price will be directly influenced by how much it earns. I suspect that as time passes its price will go down reflecting what it costs to produce. It's good for the currency and apps that are created around it but I suspect it will be bad as an asset investment.

It has a bright future but the price appreciation of Ether by speculation is over.

An infinitely deflationary currency will be hard to popularize as anything other than a fiat. With the regulation around custodial Ethereum, I doubt the whole "dApp" ecosystem is going to go anywhere beyond where it stalled-out circa-2017.