-------- Original message --------
From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com>
Date: 12/10/17 9:33 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com>
> Date: 12/9/17 2:50 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
> Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
>
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, z9wahqvh <z9wahqvh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point, from the
>>> point of view of understanding the system. The correct mapping is between
>>> Bitcoin and the *price* of energy.
>>>
>>> If electricity were 10 times as expensive, Bitcoin mining use of electric
>>> power would drop by a factor of 10 (for a given BTC price). The point of
>>> spending money on mining is to be competitive. The absolute amount of
>>> power
>>> is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> This means that if governments raised the price of electricity, or
>>> resources used for generating it, then BTC would never be a problem. Not
>>> trivial to do, admittedly, but the point here is to understand the
>>> system.
>>
>>
>> it has nothing to do with the price of energy. the price of energy is
>> never
>> mentioned in the analyses that worry about Bitcoin's energy use, and for
>> good reason.
>>
>> the problem with Bitcoin is that it uses an enormous QUANTITY of energy to
>> verify each new transaction. That amount has nothing to do with the price
>> of
>> energy. It is a quantity of energy, measured in kilowatt hours or whatever
>> quantity you want (they currently use "TeraWatt hours," because it uses
>> that
>> much). It takes a certain amount of coal or oil or solar power to generate
>> those kilowatt hours, and the number is rising steeply:
>>
>> https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
>>
>> There is no mention of price in the equations that produce this analysis,
>> nor should there be.
>>
>> IF coal and oil did not pollute and we had infinite free energy, this
>> would
>> not be a problem. But they do, and we don't, and it is, and it's getting
>> worse.
>
> You gloss over the fact that if coal and oil didn't pollute, and we
> had infinite free energy, bitcoin would be (relatively)
> [use|worth]less, and we'd not have to worry about most any shortage at
> all.
>
> Michael drew the correct conclusion.
>
> Bitcoin is produced in relation to other economic goods, and under the
> constraints of the costs of energy and computer infrastructure. If
> those costs go up, production of bitcoin goes does, and if other
> economic goods become more valuable relative to bitcoin, then again
> production of bitcoin goes down.
>
> Kurt
>
> A total evasion of the point. Point being Dead planet" sooner than later.
>
> Rr

You don't define what you mean by "kill the planet", nor "dead
planet", but not even if every country launched all of their nuclear
weapons at once could we kill the planet. It's not even certain such
an event would kill all humans.

At this stage in our technology, we simply can't do it.

Kurt

It's a waste of bandwidth and my time  to discuss this with you. Go drive your two cars around for a while. Maybe on the LA Freeway while it's surrounded by fire. 

Rr

Ps. My 65 Travelall could literally crush your pretty little piece of tin up against the 405's guardrails and drive away with barely a scratch. You might consider Viagra to get your dick up instead.

Rr