Jack Dorsey claims Bitcoin incentivizes renewable energy(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Jack Dorsey claims Bitcoin incentivizes renewable energy
https://twitter.com/jack/status/1384903902907314176
38 comments
For any cryptocurrency experts out there, is there any way the Bitcoin protocol could be altered (or temporarily halted while being updated) without compromising the blockchain so that instead of guessing for some hash/key combination, it could be part of some distributed computing project? Like assisting in the Folding@Home or some other project that benefits humanity in some way? I know hindsight is 20/20, but it represents an immense wasted opportunity and supposedly consumes more electricity than all of Argentina.
Proof of Work has by very definition to be useless work, otherwise it doesn't "cost" anything to attack the network as you get something as a byproduct.
The very idea of Proof of Work is completely insane and stupid if you think about it more than 10 seconds but hey here we are.
The very idea of Proof of Work is completely insane and stupid if you think about it more than 10 seconds but hey here we are.
it incentivizes the cheapest energy source... like every other thing that uses energy...
It's worse than that. Because BTC can be transferred globally, it actually increases demand for the cheapest energy regardless of location.
One could easily imagine it becoming a way for Chinese or Korean coal mines to grow and remain profitable.
Aluminum aka "solid electricity" somewhat fills this role as well, but aluminum certainly doesn't travel as quickly as a coin.
One could easily imagine it becoming a way for Chinese or Korean coal mines to grow and remain profitable.
Aluminum aka "solid electricity" somewhat fills this role as well, but aluminum certainly doesn't travel as quickly as a coin.
You realize that's already happening on a much bigger scale. Most of our solar panels - whose manufacturing process is extremely energy intensive - come from China, a country with about 70% of its electricity coming from coal. And of course, the inputs to that manufacturing process are themselves mainly made in China, again with cheap highly polluting coal power.
Yes, I realize it's already happening and mentioned aluminum as another example. I don't know how that changes my point, which is that BTC mining is another incentive for the same problem.
Why do people still listen to this clown?!
Elon Musk agrees.
We will never have an energy surplus, because cheap enough energy will be used for cryptocurrency mining. It's like when we thought that the industrial revolution/productivity boom would lead to a four hour work week.
That's not unique to cryptocurrency mining, there are other things that are rate limited by energy costs as well.
But instead of meeting the demand for those other things, things we need like electric vehicles, we're just going to end up wasting it on cryptocurrency mining and end up right back at square one. I just don't see how Bitcoin is sustainable in it's current form.
[deleted]
+ “Bitcoin is good for environment”
+ YouTube CEO awards herself a Freedom award
It all makes sense now - it is an opposite year from Sponge Bob
+ YouTube CEO awards herself a Freedom award
It all makes sense now - it is an opposite year from Sponge Bob
There needs to be a term for this, perhaps Marie Antoinette syndrome, unfortunately there is already another Marie Antoinette syndrome[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette_syndrome
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Antoinette_syndrome
A comparison to Baghdad Bob is apt. "There are no existence of American troops in Baghdad, at all"
An important thing to realize about proof-of-work is that at the moment, it's constrained by availability of hardware: both SHA256² ASICS (Bitcoin) and GPUs (other coins) are in short supply right now. Additionally, the quality of that hardware is still not that good, with frequent failures when used for PoW mining (though that has improved a lot). Historically, that's given miners in low labour cost jurisdictions a surprisingly big advantage. I've personally visited mining in China a few years back: it was amazing the degree to which the place was a death trap. Huge piles of flammable packaging just left in big piles, high voltage bus bars just sitting out in the open with just signs to "protect" workers from being electrocuted, etc.
But as things calm down, PoW mining becomes dominated by the availability of cheap power and cheap cooling. Ideally negative - IE doing something useful with the waste heat (harder than it sounds as you're competing against heat pumps). And when rapid growth isn't as important, you can afford to spend the relatively small amount of time and effort making the equipment last much longer. Like all electronics, there's no fundamental reason why it can't last ~forever, and the extra up-front cost isn't that much if you're using the equipment for a few years.
Finally, because renewables have an enormous range of production capacity between different weather conditions, we can expect a renewable only grid - especially one dominated by solar and wind - to have far more capacity than needed for much of the year unless storage becomes much cheaper than it is. That's why PoW mining using up that excess is plausible. But it remains to be seen if it can compete with stuff like long-term storage in the form of hydroelectric, hydrogen, etc.
But as things calm down, PoW mining becomes dominated by the availability of cheap power and cheap cooling. Ideally negative - IE doing something useful with the waste heat (harder than it sounds as you're competing against heat pumps). And when rapid growth isn't as important, you can afford to spend the relatively small amount of time and effort making the equipment last much longer. Like all electronics, there's no fundamental reason why it can't last ~forever, and the extra up-front cost isn't that much if you're using the equipment for a few years.
Finally, because renewables have an enormous range of production capacity between different weather conditions, we can expect a renewable only grid - especially one dominated by solar and wind - to have far more capacity than needed for much of the year unless storage becomes much cheaper than it is. That's why PoW mining using up that excess is plausible. But it remains to be seen if it can compete with stuff like long-term storage in the form of hydroelectric, hydrogen, etc.
I agree with Dorsey on this. It reminds me of what Andreessen said, “The best thing for the environment is economic growth.”
I think the oft-misattributed Einstein quote applies here. "The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
I prefer "You cannot solve a problem with the same level of thinking that created it in the first place."
But your point stands.
But your point stands.
I'd argue that the best thing for the environment would be low population growth and rising productivity. Considering the anti-synergy between fertility and education, these are almost the same thing.
The easiest and laziest way to get economic growth is by growing the population.
The easiest and laziest way to get economic growth is by growing the population.
Can he show proof of work or do we just take his word for it?
What if it incentivizes proof-of-stake cryptocurrencies in the hopes of overtaking Bitcoin?
I mean this is like saying coll-rolling incentivizes renewable energy or pouring lead into the river incentivizes the local water agency to up their game. Technically correct, but in this case the worst kind of correct
Pardon my ignorance but what is coll-rolling?
I think they mean this - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
Wow, TIL. It had never occurred to me that anyone would deliberately blow diesel straight out the exhaust. Every diesel (4x4) owner I’ve known specifically optimises the other way.
There are some youtubers that do this to "show off" their creations. [1] I have to admit, a Cummins in a Mustang is somewhat unique.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwK8tlR38u0
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwK8tlR38u0
Ah thanks, I googled “cold rolling” and things like that.
Eagerly awaiting info on how it’s good for motherhood on May, 9
If you own a wind farm, bitcoin is great because you can use excess energy to mine bitcoins when demand is low.
That doesn't help the environment directly of course, it only helps you.
But I suppose you could argue that it drives down the cost of operating a wind farm, which in principle makes you able to sell renewable energy cheaper.
That doesn't help the environment directly of course, it only helps you.
But I suppose you could argue that it drives down the cost of operating a wind farm, which in principle makes you able to sell renewable energy cheaper.
Are we meant to take this seriously or we meant to treat this in the same way Tobacco companies told us that cigarettes were good for you?
I mean, some of this is kind of stupid
>Bitcoin miners are unique energy buyers in that they offer highly flexible and easily interruptible load
Is it? Is that at all true. My guess is that the economics of crypto are such that to get an ROI on your huge capital expense (mining boxes that have a limited life and are depreciating quickly), you need to be running your mining rig 100% utilization. My guess is far from being a buyer of last resort the exact opposite happens - you build your mining farm next to a wind farm and instead of acting as a buyer of last resort your miner soaks up almost the entire supply of cheap energy pushing all the actual useful activity back onto non-renewables. What happens when China changes their regulations, a load of miners fall off the network, the reward shoots right up and miners cause brown outs around the world because they're suddenly no longer buyers or last resort but instead are incredibly incentivized to mine as much as possible.
And I say guess in all this because the white paper offers literally no justification for why BTC miners would be a buyer of last resort instead of what they are demonstrably doing right now - which is crowding out useful energy uses in markets where energy costs are artificially low.
I mean, some of this is kind of stupid
>Bitcoin miners are unique energy buyers in that they offer highly flexible and easily interruptible load
Is it? Is that at all true. My guess is that the economics of crypto are such that to get an ROI on your huge capital expense (mining boxes that have a limited life and are depreciating quickly), you need to be running your mining rig 100% utilization. My guess is far from being a buyer of last resort the exact opposite happens - you build your mining farm next to a wind farm and instead of acting as a buyer of last resort your miner soaks up almost the entire supply of cheap energy pushing all the actual useful activity back onto non-renewables. What happens when China changes their regulations, a load of miners fall off the network, the reward shoots right up and miners cause brown outs around the world because they're suddenly no longer buyers or last resort but instead are incredibly incentivized to mine as much as possible.
And I say guess in all this because the white paper offers literally no justification for why BTC miners would be a buyer of last resort instead of what they are demonstrably doing right now - which is crowding out useful energy uses in markets where energy costs are artificially low.
First, I worked at Square from 2011 to 2017 and have been very invested in the company and the mission.
Second, I was super interested in Bitcoin around 2010-2011. Doing a little bit of small scale mining myself. I've since become very negative on Bitcoin for a few reasons. 1. Insatiable energy needs, and the environmental impact of that. 2. It's a solution looking for a problem, and not a good solution at that 3. It's a world filled with charlatans and get rich quicker. Pump and dump.
Overall I think you're exactly right, it's like the Tobacco companies telling us cigarettes are good for you. It's motivated reasoning, or just straight up propaganda, and green washing.
And before they published this, I was already seeing people use this exact line of motivated reasoning, that mining encourages green energy development, to justify it. So now I think Square, Jack, and Elon just gave that story more credibility.
Here are two takedowns of the Square argument, sorry both are paywalls, but googling the headline got me to both: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-22/what-musk...
https://www.ft.com/content/0448b44d-1d78-48f8-8ca8-6edae7976...
Second, I was super interested in Bitcoin around 2010-2011. Doing a little bit of small scale mining myself. I've since become very negative on Bitcoin for a few reasons. 1. Insatiable energy needs, and the environmental impact of that. 2. It's a solution looking for a problem, and not a good solution at that 3. It's a world filled with charlatans and get rich quicker. Pump and dump.
Overall I think you're exactly right, it's like the Tobacco companies telling us cigarettes are good for you. It's motivated reasoning, or just straight up propaganda, and green washing.
And before they published this, I was already seeing people use this exact line of motivated reasoning, that mining encourages green energy development, to justify it. So now I think Square, Jack, and Elon just gave that story more credibility.
Here are two takedowns of the Square argument, sorry both are paywalls, but googling the headline got me to both: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-22/what-musk...
https://www.ft.com/content/0448b44d-1d78-48f8-8ca8-6edae7976...