Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[Marina Brown]

On 12/11/2017 09:59 PM, John Newman wrote:
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 

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