Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[John Newman]

> On Dec 10, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, g2s <g2s at riseup.net> wrote:
>> 
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Kurt Buff <kurt.buff at gmail.com>
>> Date: 12/9/17 2:50 PM (GMT-08:00)
>> To: cypherpunks at lists.cpunks.org
>> Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet
>> 
>>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, z9wahqvh <z9wahqvh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Michael Nelson <nelson_mikel at 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.