Ask HN: Is crypto still bad for the environment?
I remember lots of discussion on how crypto was heavily impacting climate change a few years ago, is that still the case? Was it debunked? I don't see any consensus after some google-searching
17 comments
I would say it is waste on all levels. Proof of work on massive resource level. And proof of stake as wasted effort... Lot of time and human energy spend on it could likely be much better spend.
How is proof is stake wasted effort? What human energy is required there?
1) The real answer might depend on the time-frame you're considering. In the short run, crypto does use up a good amount of electricity, which nobody disputes. But in the long-run, crypto fortunes being dependent on electricity prices probably puts a hell of a lot of financial pressure to emphasize the most efficient possible sources of power. Crypto creates its own financial award for those who promote capital investment in the most efficient sources of power. This incentive matters in a bigger timescale.
2) Keep in mind that the climate isn't the only important variable in society. If crypto is bad for the environment, but great for freedom from government tyranny, is it not still good on balance?
3) A lot of the criticism of crypto you read might not be very genuine. A lot of criticism of crypto may come from people/corporations in the media with vested interests in the primacy of the current financial order. So make up your own mind about crypto rather than being influenced by the generic media broadcasts.
2) Keep in mind that the climate isn't the only important variable in society. If crypto is bad for the environment, but great for freedom from government tyranny, is it not still good on balance?
3) A lot of the criticism of crypto you read might not be very genuine. A lot of criticism of crypto may come from people/corporations in the media with vested interests in the primacy of the current financial order. So make up your own mind about crypto rather than being influenced by the generic media broadcasts.
Username checks out
I can agree with you on all points above, but why is it more important to keep freedom from tyranny instead of keeping our environment healthy? If climate change ruins the earth what’s the point of freedom anyway?
I can agree with you on all points above, but why is it more important to keep freedom from tyranny instead of keeping our environment healthy? If climate change ruins the earth what’s the point of freedom anyway?
> I can agree with you on all points above, but why is it more important to keep freedom from tyranny instead of keeping our environment healthy?
Value is subjective, and anybody is entitled to prioritize the environment over any other values just as I'm free to prioritize freedom over anything else. I might just as well ask you what's the point of living in the most aesthetic prison? I don't know that there's an objectively right answer here, we're just speaking on different values.
> If climate change ruins the earth what’s the point of freedom anyway?
A lot of big science-related political disagreements in recent years stem from radically different (and in my opinion, wrong) risk-management decisions from people who (in my opinion) have almost always proven themselves to be wrong in a major way.
Based on everything I've learned in my life, I think the odds of normal human activity destroying the Earth are a very remote bet, and the odds of authoritarians who gain absolute power murdering many millions is a total guarantee.
IMO, while I don't think this would be a popular opinion on HN, I think humans face a far bigger risk from authoritarians than from climate change.
Value is subjective, and anybody is entitled to prioritize the environment over any other values just as I'm free to prioritize freedom over anything else. I might just as well ask you what's the point of living in the most aesthetic prison? I don't know that there's an objectively right answer here, we're just speaking on different values.
> If climate change ruins the earth what’s the point of freedom anyway?
A lot of big science-related political disagreements in recent years stem from radically different (and in my opinion, wrong) risk-management decisions from people who (in my opinion) have almost always proven themselves to be wrong in a major way.
Based on everything I've learned in my life, I think the odds of normal human activity destroying the Earth are a very remote bet, and the odds of authoritarians who gain absolute power murdering many millions is a total guarantee.
IMO, while I don't think this would be a popular opinion on HN, I think humans face a far bigger risk from authoritarians than from climate change.
3) The exact inverse is much more commonly visible - disingenuous promotion of crypto from those with vested interests
You’ve been burned by a few memecoins huh
Proof of stake crypto is not great but arguably worth the environmental impact, if proven useful. I'm not convinced it's useful or positive for the society in general but some people enjoy crypto and will claim the oppositive.
The consensus about proof of work crypto is that it's terrible for the environment. I know someone who crypto mine in winter to heat up his home but it's more for fun, and he would rather invest in new windows than cryptominers.
The consensus about proof of work crypto is that it's terrible for the environment. I know someone who crypto mine in winter to heat up his home but it's more for fun, and he would rather invest in new windows than cryptominers.
Several major blockchains switched to proof of stake which uses virtually no power so that's some progress. Bitcoin is still using proof of work. Bitcoin miners are trying to use the cheapest power available which in many cases is renewable but Bitcoin mining is increasing load on the grid faster than capacity can be added, so effectively their demand is keeping old dirty power around.
It would be interesting if people (consumers mostly) could be charged for the type of compute they spend our energy production on.
For example gamers, crypto fiends, people who stream content, etc. They should incur some extra charges for their compute spend.
It’s for the planet and maybe we could break doomerism by pricing it out.
For example gamers, crypto fiends, people who stream content, etc. They should incur some extra charges for their compute spend.
It’s for the planet and maybe we could break doomerism by pricing it out.
They are already paying for the electricity
Don’t we uh, already pay for our electricity consumption?
It really depends what value the project is bringing to the world. LLMs are using tons of energy but no one say it's waste because it's bringing values to the world. I think the right question to ask is are the crypto projects meaningful.
Why would it ever be good for the environment? It's not going to reduce power usage or capture carbon
Pretty sure it’s still the case from recent convos I’ve had with friends in crypto, it’s just no one talks about it anymore because crypto is massively unrelevant right now
How is crypto irrelevant? It’s been taking off the last 2 months
physical environment, no. economic environment, yes.