Bitcoin is the worst waste of resources and energy in human history. It is solely used for financial speculation, with no genuine utility.
This is a call to ethical hackers: through targeted and repeated computer attacks, we could undermine the confidence of speculators and burst this irrational and destructive financial bubble.
Sure, cryptocurrency has a lot of problems and is a big energy sink, but:
Bitcoin is the worst waste of resources and energy in human history.
Without providing insight into the other energy wasters of humanity, the article did not provide supporting evidence. It’s flashy to throw up big numbers like “oh look Bitcoin uses more energy than some countries”, but what about things like meat consumption, gas powered cars, aircraft, and heating/cooling of overly big mansions? Or that insane thing that western businesses do where they leave the lights on in their buildings when closing for the night (I think it’s for theft insurance or something). Coca cola, which mainly sells junk food and therefore completely unnecessary products, probably pollutes more in a year than all of cryptocurrency’s history. Don’t get me started about oil companies. I’m almost certain any of those account for more CO2 emissions than cryptocurrency. Sure, they’re not useless in all instances, but cutting down on those to necessity rather than luxury will most likely do much more than stopping cryptocurrency. There are only so many hours in a day, pick your priorities.
It is solely used for financial speculation, with no genuine utility.
Cryptocurrency helps countries like Cuba, Iran, the DPRK and even China work around sanctions imposed by imperialist countries like the US (think of those countries how you want, but don’t you claim that the US sanctions them to make the world a better place). In short, it has anti-world-domination uses. If most of the money was controlled by western institutions, it would not bode well for the world at large.
For example, China just implemented a government controlled, IIRC non-minable blockchain-based currency specifically to help loosen the grip of the US dollar on the world. Good thing too, considering global reliance on the US dollar both gives them a massively unfair political advantage and has made them think they can just do whatever the fuck they want with their economy, which resulted in multiple global recessions all stemming from US greed.
This is a call to ethical hackers: through targeted and repeated computer attacks, we could undermine the confidence of speculators and burst this irrational and destructive financial bubble.
FYI that’s not ethical hacking. Targeting someone else’s computer without permission is illegal. If caught, you WILL go to prison.
Also, to anyone who wants a career in tech (and therefore might have the ability to pull off something like this), a cyber crime conviction on your criminal record will most likely utterly destroy your future in the technology field (and most other jobs). Why would any tech employer hire someone with a history of misusing computers? How do they know you won’t do the same to them? The stories of big hackers that got high up tech jobs after their convictions are the exceptions and not the rule, and number in the low tens out of tens of thousands of cybercrime convictions, and you’re almost certainly nowhere near as good as they were that companies can overlook their history, and even then the companies need to be convinced that they won’t do it again.
Edit: Finally, keep in mind that unless you take down all cryptocurrency, speculation using them will continue (yes, even the non-minable ones, people spend tons of energy trading actual countries’ currencies too, and blockchain is inherently much more energy intensive than regular electronic currency). Just taking down bitcoin solves nothing, will land plenty of people in prison, and just further vilify technology activists in the eyes of society.
but what about things like meat consumption, gas powered cars, aircraft, and heating/cooling of overly big mansions?
Whataboutism. Why does it matter what other bad things we do? We shouldn’t do any of them.
There are only so many hours in a day, pick your priorities.
Sure. Most of the examples you cite you as an individual can do nothing about. Others are simply avoiding the consumption of specific goods. Not all that time-consuming.
In short, it has anti-world-domination uses.
Sure, cryptocurrencies has it’s uses. And fortunately Bitcoin isn’t the only cryptocurrency. So let’s use the less wasteful ones.
FYI that’s not ethical hacking. Targeting someone else’s computer without permission is illegal. If caught, you WILL go to prison.
I think you’re confusing ethical and illegal. Most of the suggestions aren’t illegal either though.
Finally, keep in mind that unless you take down all cryptocurrency, speculation using them will continue
Yes, but at least it should be less wasteful.
Sure. Most of the examples you cite you as an individual can do nothing about. Others are simply avoiding the consumption of specific goods. Not all that time-consuming.
Telling other people to do it. Campaigning for regulations, organizing like minded individuals. Research and development. Literally walk or bike instead of driving, takes longer, emits less pollution.
Most of the suggestions aren’t illegal either though.
Let’s see:
“The destruction of Bitcoin can (and must) also be accelerated by large-scale computer attacks, which would permanently undermine the confidence of speculators,” illegal.
“However, it is possible to attack its centralized, vulnerable interfaces,” illegal.
“or to saturate the network (DDOS) with streams of fake transactions,” illegal in two ways: compromizing other people’s systems to create a DDOS capable botnet, and performing the DDOS itself. When combined with the statement immediately above, it is also very explicitly not ethical, since you have to compromise innocent bystanders’ systems to get enough bandwidth to attack any of the major cryptocurrency exchanges.
“If a group of hackers (real or fake) announced an impending attack, the price of Bitcoin would likely collapse,” threats of this nature are illegal depending on jurisdiction, not as bad as the other ones though.
“simply share this article as widely as you can,” counts as aiding and abetting criminal activity, illegal.
Yes, but at least it should be less wasteful.
What happens when a similar network pops back up? The code is open source, anyone can use it to make a cryptocurrency just like Bitcoin. Do you plan on perpetually playing whack-a-mole while more and more people on your side are arrested?
Plus, as said before, cryptocurrencies inherently require a lot of computation, even non-minable ones. All you’ll do is create a reduction in emissions that probably won’t matter when where greater climate is concerned.
Telling other people to do it. Campaigning for regulations, organizing like minded individuals. Research and development. Literally walk or bike instead of driving, takes longer, emits less pollution.
Good suggestions! I do all of those, and yet I still have time left over!
illegal in two ways: compromizing other people’s systems to create a DDOS capable botnet, and performing the DDOS itself.
DDOS is used, perhaps poorly, in reference to generating fake transactions. I doubt that will require any kind of botnet since Bitcoin’s transaction processing speed is extremely slow. Targeting specific computers and acquiring a botnet is indeed illegal, that is correct, but I don’t think either is necessary. I also agree that the latter is unethical, for the record.
That aside, I bet you would have been a lot of fun to have around during the civil rights movement. “No, Rosa Parks, don’t do it! That’s illegal!”.
What happens when a similar network pops back up?
Why would it? There are better alternatives already in operation. My guess is that Ethereum would take over. The only reason Bitcoin still sustains itself is because it’s a massive speculative bubble. It will inevitably burst, and as with all speculative bubbles, the rich will walk away richer and the poor suckers who bought into it will walk away poorer. It’s in everyone’s interest but the rich that the bubble bursts sooner rather than later.
Also, once the first cryptocurrency bubble pops, a lot of people will realize the huge risk of speculating on the value of thin air and will avoid it or at least be a lot more careful in the future. That means the problem of speculation will be greatly reduced, the value of other cryptocurrencies would become more stable and much less energy would be wasted.
Cybercrime is often based on intent. For example, DOS attacks via exploitation of vulnerabilities and causing a shutdown is still illegal, even though they only require one computer.
Good suggestions! I do all of those, and yet I still have time left over!
I think you underestimate how much effort a major cyber attack takes. All I’m saying is that in terms of CO2 emissions reduced per hour, there are probably better ways of doing it.
My guess is that Ethereum would take over.
There’s actually an Ethereum mining craze going on right now: https://videocardz.com/newz/chinese-gpu-miners-are-now-bulk-buying-geforce-rtx-30-laptops-to-mine-ethereum
I feel like that’s not good for the environment either, especially since GPUs are also crazy inefficient. Non-minable ones like the PRC one is the way to go IMO for legitimate financial transactions, but they’re few and far between, and since they’re harder to profit from, there will continue to be minable ones as long as capitalism is a thing.
Also, once the first cryptocurrency bubble pops, a lot of people will realize the huge risk of speculating on the value of thin air and will avoid it or at least be a lot more careful in the future.
You’re way underestimating capitalists. The whole reason new cryptocurrencies are popping up left and right is because the the initial wave of trading is often when most of the money is made, and most of them are never used for actual mainstream transactions because I never see any organization other than cryptocurrency exchanges accepting them (don’t think the capitalists don’t realize this. They do and don’t care). This is the crowd that caused multiple recessions trying the same money making tricks again and again.
I’d also like to repeat what throwaway96581 said because I think this needs to be taken into account:
The negative effect on the environment have to take into conclusion anything that Bitcoin replaces or could replace.
If Bitcoin replace gold as store of value. It will decrease a lot of huge energy consumption and destruction of earth by goldminers.
If bitcoin replaces property speculation it will cause people to be forced to take on less debt. Since houseprices wont be pushed up by speculation. Removing speculation on houseprices would also shrinking the risk of houseprice crashes which can have huge negstive impacts on peoples lives.
[…]
And it also does not follow that all energy consumption is bad. If it makes it more profitable to build a windturbine more people would turn to wind power.
You might argue that other cryptocurrencies can also do this, but keep in mind that shaking the trust in cryptocurrency in such a big way (knowing there’s a large group actively attacking cryptocurrency) might cause all of them to come crashing down (a historical example is the collapse of the USSR absolutely crippling worker’s rights and general leftist movements worldwide, movements which could have done a lot of good in the world).
Capitalists might return to buying precious metals or property with the money they would have used for cryptocurrency, or investing in companies that pollute more than Bitcoin ever could (remember that electricity generation and electronics is not the biggest environmental destroyer though they are significant: capitalist agriculture, livestock, everyday disposable plastics, and fossil fuel vehicles are), the former two is massively environmentally damaging (I’d wager more than Bitcoin), and all have serious human rights implications (really the only way to get rid of them is to get rid of capitalism itself).
Marginalized countries might also lose a way of circumventing sanctions because a cryptocurrency is pretty useless when no other organizations accept it, which would just be handing political power to the US. We’d be losing the benefits too, just to make the bubble pop a little sooner.
Knowing the current state of surveillance capitalism, countries might even use this to say “hey, see this? encryption doesn’t work! It might even get you hacked!” (yes I know cryptocurrency and end-to-end encryption are different things, but tons of people don’t know that and could well be fooled into supporting cryptography bans, most propaganda is nonsense and they’re still massively effective).
You’re gambling on something that may or may not work (as another commenter pointed out, the Bitcoin network is actively trying to scale) and may or may not cause a lot more unintended consequences.
I think you underestimate how much effort a major cyber attack takes.
I think you underestimate the power ordinary people have if they manage to organize.
All I’m saying is that in terms of CO2 emissions reduced per hour, there are probably better ways of doing it.
There’s also the added benefit of giving the middle finger to wealthy speculators, which seems to be in vogue these days.
There’s actually an Ethereum mining craze going on right now
Ethereum is in the process of transitioning to proof-of-stake, but it’s not there yet. Until then it’s pretty bad too, yes. Proof-of-stake is also highly experimental, and not without other issues, so there’s still a good chance it won’t work out either. But at least there’s a possibility, unlike Bitcoin.
The whole reason new cryptocurrencies are popping up left and right is because the the initial wave of trading is often when most of the money is made
That’s because there’ very little to no inherent value in any cryptocurrency. It’s just pretend-money. An illusion. And the illusion breaks if people stop believing in it. That’s the point! To get anywhere they would then (hopefully) need to demonstrate actual value, not just empty promises.
I’d also like to repeat what throwaway96581 said because I think this needs to be taken into account
That’s a whole bunch of what-ifs. And gold and real estate is used as value stores, safe havens, because they’re relatively stable, which in turn is because they’re real assts with real scarcity. Bitcoin is the complete opposite.
keep in mind that shaking the trust in cryptocurrency in such a big way (knowing there’s a large group actively attacking cryptocurrency) might cause all of them to come crashing down
I don’t see the problem… They should, at least to the extent that they’re just balloons full of empty promises. Bubbles have never been good for anything other than making rich people richer, and having it burst sooner rather than later will cause less damage. What substance is there will remain, as it did after the dot com bubble, for example.
deleted by creator
is this really necessary tho?
it’s going to collapse on it’s own because of rising transaction fees and transaction throughput because of fixed block size, block reward will tend to zero over time, which will make any sort of mining unsustainable financially…
We’d save a lot of wasted energy if it collapsed faster.
I also agree that in the long run POS is better. But the article seems like very alarmist propaganda since it is very scientifically incorrect.
Lots of problems.
The numbers in the article are made up or based on a pretty much speculative made up article.
Lightning network has just been made better allowing millions of transactions per second.
…Maybe that is why that hitpiece propaganda article was published…
The blocksize could be increased. I personally think it should but I can see why they don’t.
BCH is experimenting with a blocksize allowing 5000 tps.
The article talks about the limited amount if transactions. But not value transacted. It claims Bitcoin is used for speculation while in reality it might be used for crossborder payments by money transmitters.
The negative effect on the environment have to take into conclusion anything that Bitcoin replaces or could replace.
If Bitcoin replace gold as store of value. It will decrease a lot of huge energy consumption and destruction of earth by goldminers.
If bitcoin replaces property speculation it will cause people to be less forced to take on huge debt. Since houseprices wont be pushed up by speculation. Removing speculation on houseprices would also shrink the risk of houseprice crashes which can have huge negative impacts on peoples lives.
People dont need to own bitcoins but the need to own a place to live.
Bitcoin looks to be able to replace much of both, as a store of value.
Its way too early to say that Bitcoin wont scale. And therefore it is useless.
The article states that is is propaganda that Bitcoin helps making green energy more profitable and affordable. And claims that miners are mining at night too.
How can the author know that miners do not decrease the mining when there is less overproduction of electricity?
It would not show up on the hashrate since the mining is distributed across the world.
Seems like a childish article that clearly does not come from a serious environmental activist considering it is based on lots of assumptions.
But rather someone who has an agenda.
Would be interesting to read a serious research of the effects of Bitcoin mining. Lots of mining are based on renewable energy and could actually be supporting it.
And it also does not follow that all energy consumption is bad. If it makes it more profitable to build a windturbine more people would turn to wind power as it would lower the time before it becomes proftable.
But I do understand that the article was probably published with support by some big entity who have a profit motive planning to try and disrupt the price of Bitcoin. And by publishing it they can then blame the ‘attacks’ on environmental activists.
I’m neither a hacker or someone who have to defend Bitcoin. If it is bad it’s bad, maybe it is or maybe it helps driving investment into renewables, and in that case it is probably good if true. But I personally would like to base my opinion, not on misinformation. The article seemed too biased too be trustworthy.
It was also kind of predictable that the energy consumption of Bitcoin would be attacked as soon as Ethereum changed to POS.
I belive that once most coins are created a CC should run on POS.
But would like to read some quality information and not that speculative medium article.
Dear Green Hackers,
Don’t.
-Pope Meat.
Some anti-FUD for you:
https://reason.com/video/2021/02/05/bitcoin-is-protecting-human-rights-around-the-world/
https://www.upstreamdata.ca/post/natural-gas-venting-how-bitcoin-solved-a-160-year-old-problem (https://twitter.com/Beetcoin/status/1120277815058944001)
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-over-74-bitcoin-mining-180300738.html
https://reason.com/video/2021/02/05/bitcoin-is-protecting-human-rights-around-the-world/
Lol @ “freedom money”. That’s some A-grade propaganda right there. But yeah, cryptocurrencies do have some uses. And fortunately Bitcoin isn’t the only cryptocurrency. It therefore ought to be killed off in favour of less asinine alternatives.
https://www.upstreamdata.ca/post/natural-gas-venting-how-bitcoin-solved-a-160-year-old-problem (https://twitter.com/Beetcoin/status/1120277815058944001)
If energy that would otherwise be wasted is used to mine Bitcoin, then fine I guess. But would it, really? If you can use it to mine bitcoin, could you not also use it for other computationally intensive tasks such as protein folding and other kinds of number crunching for science? Either way it still seems like an open question whether this is commercially viable, since if profit is the only incentive it needs to be cheaper than the alternatives.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-over-74-bitcoin-mining-180300738.html
That number is most likely bullshit, but even if it’s not it’s still a waste of energy whether renewable or not. If not used to mine useless bitcoins it could be used for something actually useful, or better yet, it could reduce the use of fossil fuels for power generation.
Thanks @glennsl@lemmy.ml for your support and answers !
But yeah, cryptocurrencies do have some uses. And fortunately Bitcoin isn’t the only cryptocurrency. It therefore ought to be killed off in favour of less asinine alternatives.
The article was pretty explicit about being against all cryptocurrency.
I think that’s actually a typo. It makes a lot more sense that “No all cryptocurrencies” should be “Not all cryptocurrencies”, both for the sentence it’s in and the rest of the section.
Keep in mind that unless you take down all cryptocurrency, speculation using them will continue (yes, even the non-minable ones, people spend tons of energy trading actual countries’ currencies too, and blockchain is inherently much more energy intensive than regular electronic currency). Just taking down bitcoin solves nothing, will land plenty of people in prison, and just further vilify technology activists in the eyes of society.
Lol @ “freedom money”. That’s some A-grade propaganda right there.
So whole argument is “lol”? Do I need to post even more examples than provided by Human Rights Foundation member?
It therefore ought to be killed off in favor of less asinine alternatives.
It’s already 12 years of operation, thousands of alternative altcoins-“killers” (being generous calling them just altcoins), still no one provided more open, more decentralized, more neutral, more censorship resistant, more secure (hash power here is security) alternative. You can create faster, less energy-consuming alternative, but that will likely be more centralized, as example.
If energy that would otherwise be wasted is used to mine Bitcoin, then fine I guess. But would it, really?
“Would” is assumption. But I posted fact that gas are leaked for hundred of years, and Bitcoin miners started to tap it.
If you can use it to mine bitcoin, could you not also use it for other computationally intensive tasks such as protein folding and other kinds of number crunching for science?
Why would someone burn gas/electricity “for free” to do number crunching? Go, lunch million of FoldingAtHome instanced, beat the Bitcoin miners!
Bitcoin allows to tap remote energy sources. These miners using these remote, untapped energy sources increases mining difficulty, in that way outperforming miners with “conventional” electricity, in that way using, as mentioned above, “waste” natural gas. Miners also subsidize renewable energy providers as hydro-power, sucking excess electricity in flood seasons, for example.
Either way it still seems like an open question whether this is commercially viable, since if profit is the only incentive it needs to be cheaper than the alternatives.
The market will provide answer. If you someone provides better alternative to Bitcoin and users will switch to it - OK then. But to distroy it by hacking it…?
That number is most likely bullshit, but even if it’s not it’s still a waste of energy whether renewable or not.
Yeas, we should not assume numbers are accurate. But again, miners are incentivized to get cheapest electricity, and one of the cheapest electricity is excess one, as provided example before - hydro power. And now also reducing pure methane released into atmosphere. That’s “free” energy (minus capital needed for generator, it’s maintenance, etc, of course).
it could be used for something actually useful,
Actually useful for whom? For you? So if you don’t find it useful, nobody should? So all these “freedom money” examples are not use cases? Protecting purchasing power, battling inflation hidden-tax is not use case? See https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ too. Exiting low-time-preference fiat system is pretty important mission.
Also, as hat reason.com article said:
Maybe you don’t need bitcoin. Maybe you don’t understand bitcoin. Maybe PayPal, Venmo, or your bank account serves your needs just fine.
So keep using fiat system, and let as do our thing. If you create better alternative to Bitcoin, we might switch to it.
So whole argument is “lol”?
The argument was in the part you cut out because you’re a fucking ass.
“Would” is assumption.
Yes, your whole argument is an assumption. That’s the point.
Why would someone burn gas/electricity “for free” to do number crunching?
Because money and value are entirely different concepts. Producing knowledge is actually valuable. Producing wealth usually just means you’re exploiting someone else. I provide an example of a use case for the wasted energy that would actually be valuable, but not profitable, and contrasting that with bitcoin mining which might be profitable, but is not valuable.
The market will provide answer.
Jesus fucking christ, you inbred Anarcho-Capitalist dildo.
But again, miners are incentivized to get cheapest electricity, and one of the cheapest electricity is excess one, as provided example before - hydro power.
There is no excess clean energy in the grid. We burn fossil fuels like crazy to keep up with demand, and any use of renewable energy for mining useless bitcoins means we have to burn more fossil fuels to replace it. Not that it really makes sense to talk about specific energy use being renewable or not, as it’s all mixed in the grid and we haven’t yet invented RFID tags small enough to attach to electrons in order to identify their source.
Actually useful for whom? For you? So if you don’t find it useful, nobody should?
For covering basic needs for the majority of the world’s population who barely get by, for example? It’s of course an exaggeration to say that bitcoin is entirely useless, but considering its scale and ecological footprint it’s really not much of an exaggeration. While there are some legitimate uses, it is mostly used by criminals and as gambling for the wealthy. To say that this is less useful than pretty much anything else we could do with the same amount of resources should not be very controversial.
you’re a fucking ass.
you inbred Anarcho-Capitalist dildo.
Please dont insult other users, this is against rule 2 (Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here). This is your first warning.
The argument was in the part you cut out because you’re a fucking ass.
OK, sorry, so to clarify, your argument basically was “lol, it’s top notch propaganda”. How/why it’s propaganda? How this information could have been produced to not look (or be) a propaganda? Any my argument is probably also a propoganda? So there’s no way to discuss this, it’s decided by you it’s all propaganda and that’s it?
Yes, your whole argument is an assumption. That’s the point.
Where’s mu assumption? I showed facts that people use bitcoin to overcome government oppression, censorship, to get back control of their money AND it utilized instead-untapped energy, reducing greenhouse gas pollution. Where’s assumption here?
Because money and value are entirely different concepts … and contrasting that with bitcoin mining which might be profitable, but is not valuable.
And value is subjective. Some people buys used panties for Christ sake…!
Meanwhile, more and more institutions are starting to use Bitcoin as inflation-resistant reserve asset, they see value in it as being digital gold:
https://youtu.be/NoobUKNttmw?t=2267 (whole video is recommended) https://bitcointreasuries.org/
Others use it for (again) “freedom stuff”, they value it as cache (bearer asset that allows exchange without third parties, without censorship).
Others use it for just trading, they see value in it it as speculative asset.
Or as uber fast (using Lightning Network) final international settlement: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/strike-is-bringing-the-lightning-network-to-more-than-200-countries
Or who knows what more.
Jesus fucking christ, you inbred Anarcho-Capitalist dildo.
So we’re starting using names? Is this your argument? You say something might create better “thing”, I agree, someone might. As someone created Bitcoin, a better “gold”, go organize create something better to replace it, instead of destroying currently best thing we have “in advance”.
There is no excess clean energy in the grid. We burn fossil fuels like crazy to keep up with demand, and any use of renewable energy for mining useless bitcoins means we have to burn more fossil fuels to replace it. Not that it really makes sense to talk about specific energy use being renewable or not, as it’s all mixed in the grid and we haven’t yet invented RFID tags small enough to attach to electrons in order to identify their source.
There’s limit how far electricity can be transported efficiently, so building local mining farm in the industrial park near water dam (because miners are portable and can be moved anywhere), or oil drill site, as in these natural-gas-flaring sites mentioned earlier, utilizes untapped resources INSTEAD of conventional. This capital can be use to invest into more power generation projects, etc, etc.
Imagine some poor African nation that has a waterfall. It’s too far from civilization to be cost effective to build power lines, to transport electricity. Meanwhile, local generator and mining farm could provide income in terms of hashes, and transport it (as it is information) wirelessly via internet. You wouldn’t use that remote electricity otherwise, and it moves other “conventional” miners out of competition, reducing pollution.
OK, sorry, so to clarify, your argument basically was “lol, it’s top notch propaganda”.
It’s a comment, not an argument. The argument is in the part that you insist on cutting out: “But yeah, cryptocurrencies do have some uses. And fortunately Bitcoin isn’t the only cryptocurrency. It therefore ought to be killed off in favour of less asinine alternatives.”
But since you’re so obsessed with my propaganda comment, “freedom <whatever>” is perhaps the most cliched propaganda phrase in existence. And the Human Rights Foundation is a right-wing propaganda organization, which won’t disclose its funding sources and is headed by a member of the Venezuelan elite whose father collaborated with the CIA, and is trying to use his Norwegian heritage as a cover. That doesn’t mean the information is false, but it likely has certain ideological bias.
Where’s mu assumption?
- You assume it has to be wasted otherwise. That there’s nothing else it could be used for, or that could be done to prevent it.
- You assume it would be profitable, or perhaps that it would be used for bitcoin mining even if it’s not profitable.
I challenged both assumptions and your response is basically: wHy WOuLd AnyoNe do ANyThinG “fOr FrEE”?
And value is subjective. Some people buys used panties for Christ sake…!
Only after basic needs have been met, which most of the world’s population have not. There’s also a lot of projection of value going on. No-one really wants used panties, but some use it as a substitute for something else they can’t get, like real human relationships. And money is of course the ultimate substitute, because it can be used to buy whatever we want! Except anything that actually matters (beyond basic biological needs), of course, like real human relationships. Look into the concept of alienation as it relates to capitalism, if you want to learn more.
So we’re starting using names?
When warranted, such as when you try to insult my intelligence by spouting cultish Invisible Hand bullshit.
Is this your argument?
It’s about on the level of “the market will decide”, I’d say. Whether or not that should count as a real argument I’ll leave for you to decide.
because miners are portable and can be moved anywhere
There’s very few places where there’s excess power generation lasting more than a few hours at a time. That is especially true with water dams where the reservoirs basically function as batteries that can be tapped when needed. One exception is if the reservoir is full and there’s a lot of rain, but even that rarely lasts more than a few days.
But in any case, how much of current bitcoin mining infrastructure would you say is portable? And to what degree is it portable? Like, how long would it take to tear down, move and put up a mining facility of decent size?
This capital can be use to invest into more power generation projects, etc, etc.
For the purpose of mining more Bitcoin, of course… Alternatively we could simply not do that, and use the energy saved from not mining bitcoin instead of using even more resources to build more power plants that we wouldn’t really need if not for all the bitcoin mining.
Imagine some poor African nation that has a waterfall. It’s too far from civilization to be cost effective to build power lines,
Maybe we should just leave it alone then. Perhaps we don’t have to ruin untouched nature and disturb fragile ecosystems just to run a printing press for monopoly money. Maybe nature has inherent value, and maybe we depend on ecosystems being in balance to provide us the food we need to eat and the air we need to breathe. Maybe the biggest crises our civilization has ever faced is caused by us messing with nature to the point that it’s about to collapse. And you suggest we should do more of that?
That doesn’t mean the information is false, but it likely has certain ideological bias.
You can google/duckduck these use cases yourself, if you don’t like the messenger.
You assume it has to be wasted otherwise. That there’s nothing else it could be used for, or that could be done to prevent it.
But it is wasted, i.e. vented / burned into air (https://twitter.com/Beetcoin/status/1120277815058944001), it’s happening NOW and for many years. And only Bitcoin provides alternative, at least profitable so that it incentivizes to use that vented energy. You can’t force anyone to buy generators and run FoldingAtHome. Well, you can do fundraiser, non-profits or whatever, there’s lot’s of flared gas to use! But none one does that, so they will mine Bitcoin.
You assume it would be profitable, or perhaps that it would be used for bitcoin mining even if it’s not profitable.
Not sure where this comes from. I mean, companies are deploying these systems RIGHT NOW, this is not a hypothesis: https://www.upstreamdata.ca/products
Or you believe that they deploy theses systems with loses?
… And money is of course the ultimate substitute …
Yes, and Bitcoin, so far, is hardest money ever created, moving people into low time preference mode, allowing to save, escape government’s easily inflatable “shitcoins”, and actually reducing waste as they don’t have to spend “by force” for things that they don’t actually need to capture ever inflating fiat value. Users value that, and use it. If you don’t value it, just don’t use it; but destroying it because in your view it’s “wasteful” is insincere.
When warranted, such as when you try to insult my intelligence by spouting cultish Invisible Hand bullshit.
I don’t believe in Invisible Hand. But things just happen. There was warning that world will go down in mass starvation - but someone discovered way to capture nitrogen and create fertilizer. Money printer goes brrr and someone arrived at solution to created Bitcoin. It just happens. It might happen that some one will change Bitcoin with the better alternative - I can’t deny that in the same way as no one knew for sure that Bitcoin will appear “from nowhere”.
But in any case, how much of current bitcoin mining infrastructure would you say is portable? And to what degree is it portable? Like, how long would it take to tear down, move and put up a mining facility of decent size?
I don’t know the details, but they do move around: https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-mining-power-sees-short-term-fallback-as-rainy-season-ends-in-china :
Miners without sufficient hydropower supply would have to shut down their operations or relocate to other provinces like Xinjiang or Inner Mongolio, where mining farms have a more stable, but more expensive, power supply generated from fossil fuel plants.
For the purpose of mining more Bitcoin, of course… Alternatively we could simply not do that, and use the energy saved from not mining bitcoin instead of using even more resources to build more power plants that we wouldn’t really need if not for all the bitcoin mining.
Maybe for Bitcoin, maybe for else, who known, it’s for owners to decide. Yes, they could not do that and vend natural gas as they are doing for the 100 years…
Maybe the biggest crises our civilization has ever faced is caused by us messing with nature to the point that it’s about to collapse. And you suggest we should do more of that?
Yes we should take care of nature as much as possible, and using that flared gas is one of the methods.
Introducing hard money also helps a lot, as it moves thinking into low time preference (See Bitcoin Standard book from Saifedean Ammous), reducing malinvestments (because you can’t bailout Bitcoin owner, there’s no file->print, so three’s actual risk and actual responsibility) and actually wasteful over-consumption. Without printing press there would be no subsidies for “fiat food” - agriculture that destroys ecosystems (grasslands, prairies, event forests and jungles) by eroding soil, and also destroying human health with all these oxidizing carbs and industrial seed oils (“vegetable oils” lol), which also costs a lot in various terms (there was info about how much USA health care produces CO2, for example, sorry don’t have a link, but it’s hudge).
No one really would want to spend precious satoshis on gadget that will break in few months, or just get bored of it (like fidged spinners as silly example). That would be responsible economy.
