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. With things like automobiles and air-conditioners, raising electricity prices would improve the situation (regarding what economists call "externalities"), but degrade the user experience. Well, raising prices would improve the external impact of Bitcoin, but would have no effect on the correct functioning of the Bitcoin model. Whereas an automobile still uses the same amount of fuel to get you from A to B, when you raise the price of fuel, Bitcoin instantly drops the amount of fuel it uses, but continues to function just as well. Interestingly, environmentalists do not so much blame the automobile and the drivers as much as governments for allowing the tolerance of them, and rightly so. They say that we need fuel prices and taxes that reflect the impact on the environment, and we need support for alternative energy sources, etc. So why blame poor old Bitcoin? Mike
-------- Original message --------From: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com> Date: 12/8/17 6:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point... Not if the point is a dead planet. That's ALL I care about. Cars, which you mention, are another much thornier issue because they've been made a social necessity and that will take time to undo. As with another not often acknowledged source of carbon based pollution due to humans... The factories that make damn near everything consumer industrial societies have. But unlike those things, bitcoin generates huge amounts of pollution due to its electric demands, and, bluntly, it isn't necessary in any way shape or form. Rr
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:31 PM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Original message -------- From: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com> Date: 12/8/17 6:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point...
Not if the point is a dead planet.
That's ALL I care about. Cars, which you mention, are another much thornier issue because they've been made a social necessity and that will take time to undo. As with another not often acknowledged source of carbon based pollution due to humans... The factories that make damn near everything consumer industrial societies have.
But unlike those things, bitcoin generates huge amounts of pollution due to its electric demands, and, bluntly, it isn't necessary in any way shape or form.
Neither are coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar, sex and any number of other things that offend the sensibilities of the overly sensitive, and they aren't likely to disappear either... Kurt
-------- Original message --------From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> Date: 12/8/17 8:42 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:31 PM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Original message -------- From: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com> Date: 12/8/17 6:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point...
Not if the point is a dead planet.
That's ALL I care about. Cars, which you mention, are another much thornier issue because they've been made a social necessity and that will take time to undo. As with another not often acknowledged source of carbon based pollution due to humans... The factories that make damn near everything consumer industrial societies have.
But unlike those things, bitcoin generates huge amounts of pollution due to its electric demands, and, bluntly, it isn't necessary in any way shape or form.
Neither are coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar, sex and any number of other things that offend the sensibilities of the overly sensitive, and they aren't likely to disappear either... Kurt You denigrate your point by stating sex isn't necessary. Ropes whips and ioT glow in the dark vibrators aren't, but sex is as necessary to the survival of humans as sleep is. Rr
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:24 AM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Original message -------- From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> Date: 12/8/17 8:42 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:31 PM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Original message -------- From: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com> Date: 12/8/17 6:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point...
Not if the point is a dead planet.
That's ALL I care about. Cars, which you mention, are another much thornier issue because they've been made a social necessity and that will take time to undo. As with another not often acknowledged source of carbon based pollution due to humans... The factories that make damn near everything consumer industrial societies have.
But unlike those things, bitcoin generates huge amounts of pollution due to its electric demands, and, bluntly, it isn't necessary in any way shape or form.
Neither are coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar, sex and any number of other things that offend the sensibilities of the overly sensitive, and they aren't likely to disappear either...
Kurt
You denigrate your point by stating sex isn't necessary. Ropes whips and ioT glow in the dark vibrators aren't, but sex is as necessary to the survival of humans as sleep is.
Rr
Artificial insemination. And I find that most who decry the use of "unnecessary things' by others because of the danger to the planet, also tend to be against perpetuation of the species anyway. Kurt
-------- Original message --------From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> Date: 12/9/17 11:37 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:24 AM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Original message -------- From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> Date: 12/8/17 8:42 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:31 PM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Original message -------- From: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com> Date: 12/8/17 6:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point...
Not if the point is a dead planet.
That's ALL I care about. Cars, which you mention, are another much thornier issue because they've been made a social necessity and that will take time to undo. As with another not often acknowledged source of carbon based pollution due to humans... The factories that make damn near everything consumer industrial societies have.
But unlike those things, bitcoin generates huge amounts of pollution due to its electric demands, and, bluntly, it isn't necessary in any way shape or form.
Neither are coffee, tea, chocolate, sugar, sex and any number of other things that offend the sensibilities of the overly sensitive, and they aren't likely to disappear either...
Kurt
You denigrate your point by stating sex isn't necessary. Ropes whips and ioT glow in the dark vibrators aren't, but sex is as necessary to the survival of humans as sleep is.
Rr
Artificial insemination sik fuk
And I find that most who decry the use of "unnecessary things' by others You think I include myself out? Really? Hahahaha!
> because of the danger to the planet, also tend to be against perpetuation of the species anyway. Tell you what. Save evolution the work. Extinct yourself now... Rr
On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 19:31:27 -0800 g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point... Not if the point is a dead planet. That's ALL I care about. Cars, which you mention, are another much
-------- Original message --------From: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com> Date: 12/8/17 6:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet thornier issue because they've been made a social necessity
ahh the piece of fascist joo shit rayzer is actually a ford motors inc. shill - then again, hardly surprising. Whether it's commie concentration camps, US false flag attacks, or the american way of life, rayzer is always on the establishment's side.
-------- Original message --------From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> Date: 12/9/17 8:13 AM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet On Fri, 08 Dec 2017 19:31:27 -0800 g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point... Not if the point is a dead planet. That's ALL I care about. Cars, which you mention, are another much
-------- Original message --------From: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com> Date: 12/8/17 6:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet thornier issue because they've been made a social necessity
ahh the piece of fascist joo shit rayzer is actually a ford motors inc. shill
You quite obviously didn't read what I wrote or have a severely intellectually-challenged mind. Or both. Both. Rr
bitcoin generates huge amounts of pollution due to its electric demands
"The physical money we use today requires a total of 11 terawatt-hours per year to produce. Gold mining, another very labor-intensive process, requires as much as 132 terawatt-hours. These numbers make Bitcoin and its 8.27 terawatt-hours look like a science fair project." https://themerkle.com/bitcoin-networks-electricity-consumption-is-lower-comp... On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:31 PM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote:
-------- Original message -------- From: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com> Date: 12/8/17 6:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point...
Not if the point is a dead planet.
That's ALL I care about. Cars, which you mention, are another much thornier issue because they've been made a social necessity and that will take time to undo. As with another not often acknowledged source of carbon based pollution due to humans... The factories that make damn near everything consumer industrial societies have.
But unlike those things, bitcoin generates huge amounts of pollution due to its electric demands, and, bluntly, it isn't necessary in any way shape or form.
Rr
-------- Original message --------From: George Larson <george.g.larson@gmail.com> Date: 12/11/17 7:45 AM (GMT-08:00) To: g2s <g2s@riseup.net> Cc: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com>, cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
bitcoin generates huge amounts of pollution due to its electric demands "The physical money we use today requires a total of 11 terawatt-hours per year to produce. Gold mining, another very labor-intensive process, requires as much as 132 terawatt-hours. These numbers make Bitcoin and its 8.27 terawatt-hours look like a science fair project." https://themerkle.com/bitcoin-networks-electricity-consumption-is-lower-comp...
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:31 PM, g2s <g2s@riseup.net> wrote: -------- Original message --------From: Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel@yahoo.com> Date: 12/8/17 6:22 PM (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point... Not if the point is a dead planet. That's ALL I care about. Cars, which you mention, are another much thornier issue because they've been made a social necessity and that will take time to undo. As with another not often acknowledged source of carbon based pollution due to humans... The factories that make damn near everything consumer industrial societies have. But unlike those things, bitcoin generates huge amounts of pollution due to its electric demands, and, bluntly, it isn't necessary in any way shape or form. Rr
You're forgetting how to add. As in added electrical demand and concurrent pollution in the here and now. Furthermore, we learn in Sociology 1 that as dirty as primitive societies are about their energy use, they use the energy MUCH more efficiently, and I suggest that applies to any "improvement" in currency as well. Scaled, btc will be less efficient in its use of energy leading to "dead planet". To clarify that... dead as far as human survival. Rr
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. - z
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
-------- 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
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
-------- 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
On Dec 10, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Wrong. The nuclear winter from ~15000 nukes detonated around the globe would kill all humanity.
On 12/11/2017 09:59 PM, John Newman wrote:
On Dec 10, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
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
Wrong. The nuclear winter from ~15000 nukes detonated around the globe would kill all humanity.
Correct me if i am wrong but won't energy for bitcoin mining drop soon as we get to the end of the blockchain ? --- Marina
All: Quit fucking top posting and bulk quoting reams of useless shit. MB:
Correct me if i am wrong but won't energy for bitcoin mining drop soon as we get to the end of the blockchain ?
"The blockchain" has no specified "end". For BTC, you are meaning after all 21M coins worth of block rewards get mined. No, because the txfee will live on even after that. It turns out that "energy", let's call it "watts", may be unlikely to drop unless... 1) Transactors as a whole wake up and force it down by continually paying the bottom of the fee range. The network would be no less "secure' in all other regards, however below a certain point you do make it cheaper for govts / banks / adversaries to drop a 51% suprise wattage attack on your ass. As with calculating fee paydown, you can probably estimate how much those entities could fire up before facing a tax / crypto revolt. The more people you get into cryptocurrency sooner, the harder for those entities to do anything. 2) There's likely to be a fundamental drop when cryptocurrency has soaked up all the fiat, gold, assets, etc that it can, thus no longer providing price multipliers, only boring mining dividends, and other non-mining investments end up attractive as returning more to investors. Cryptocurrency has far more variables / paths / outcomes than even the above, which is what makes it beautiful.
On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 14:50:16 -0800 Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
no - production of bitcoin(s) follows a predefine schedule - halves every 4 years - etc
Kurt
participants (9)
-
g2s -
George Larson -
grarpamp -
John Newman -
juan -
Kurt Buff -
Marina Brown -
Michael Nelson -
z9wahqvh