Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C [pdf](nature.com)
nature.com
Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C [pdf]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8.epdf
17 comments
Fossil energy is just too cheap. If pollution, climate change and other negative effects were really priced in, Bitcoin miners would stop mining or switch to green energy, for example geothermal in Iceland. After all we know there are big mining farms there already.
Just got the electricity bill. I am mining at home. The electricity company told me that my electricity is about two thirds renewable energy and one fifth nuclear, the rest (exactly 8.2%) is unidentified, perhaps fossil energy. This energy is not cheap, on average 28 cents/kWh, but should I ever reach ROI on the mining appliance, I still have a net gain. If difficulty still rises, I will switch to mining at night only (20 cents/kWh), and even later I will need to speculate on rising prices to justify continuing mining.
It's a hobby, probably not profitable in the end. But hey, FOMO.
It's a hobby, probably not profitable in the end. But hey, FOMO.
Anyone have access to the full text? What's the quality of the analysis look like?
It's a 3 page document that makes a number of false assumptions. They extrapolate bitcoin to having 300 billion transactions and means no lightening or L2 solution and the block size would be 3gigs. Nor do they even factor in the halving. Wasn't even researched properly, just utter nonsense for the papers.
And Joe Rogan was showing how easy it is to publish fake papers in journals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg
here is the paper by the way behind a shitty paywall. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8
And Joe Rogan was showing how easy it is to publish fake papers in journals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg
here is the paper by the way behind a shitty paywall. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8
I thought Nature was one of the Big Journals that only publish high impact things. How does stuff like this slip in then?
That sounds like bullshit of all bullshits!
> They extrapolate bitcoin to having 300 billion transactions
https://xkcd.com/605/
https://xkcd.com/605/
Full text here: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8
Data & analysis is here: https://github.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/
The argument is:
1. Assume each mining pool's users are in the pool's home country, and use their country's average mix of fuel sources, and use the hardware in supplementary table 1 (which I haven't found), then Bitcoin emitted 69 MtCO2e in 2017.
2. Assume Bitcoin's usage increases at the same rate as a sample of other technologies (television, smart phone, washer+dryer...)
3. Assume that Bitcoin's carbon footprint increases with usage.
Then you can multiply the projected usage by the yearly carbon footprint, and estimate the effect on temperature, at 2°C.
A good counterargument is that Bitcoin's mining footprint is not proportional to usage. It's proportional to price * block reward = profitability.
However, this might balance out in the end. The block reward is decreasing exponentially every 4 years, but the price increases faster than usage. And when the block reward drops to zero, transaction fees will become the sole incentive for mining, which are proportional to usage.
Data & analysis is here: https://github.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/
The argument is:
1. Assume each mining pool's users are in the pool's home country, and use their country's average mix of fuel sources, and use the hardware in supplementary table 1 (which I haven't found), then Bitcoin emitted 69 MtCO2e in 2017.
2. Assume Bitcoin's usage increases at the same rate as a sample of other technologies (television, smart phone, washer+dryer...)
3. Assume that Bitcoin's carbon footprint increases with usage.
Then you can multiply the projected usage by the yearly carbon footprint, and estimate the effect on temperature, at 2°C.
A good counterargument is that Bitcoin's mining footprint is not proportional to usage. It's proportional to price * block reward = profitability.
However, this might balance out in the end. The block reward is decreasing exponentially every 4 years, but the price increases faster than usage. And when the block reward drops to zero, transaction fees will become the sole incentive for mining, which are proportional to usage.
What are these people going to do in 25 years when none of these predictions come true? Who will be held accountable for this?
No one because it's a random offhand comment that will be forgotten. Bitcoin mining would obviously transition to use renewables (it mostly does as it is, cheap hydro is what most large scale operations are using), and no one will care.
Why don't we see articles like this for more important bigger problems like plastic waste that won't be solved by renewable energy? Because making random claims about bitcoin STILL somehow gets clicks. And to the top of HN.
Why don't we see articles like this for more important bigger problems like plastic waste that won't be solved by renewable energy? Because making random claims about bitcoin STILL somehow gets clicks. And to the top of HN.
Can you expand on this? What makes you sure these predictions won't come true?
How many °C will go up because of wasted power on not turned off computers and AC in bank branches only in US?
[deleted]
D'oh, I submitted secondary reporting about this yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18333353 because this one is paywalled.
Free version: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8
There is no reason to assume developing economies suddenly stop using fossil fuels, so the idea is irrelevant.
Extrapolated crypto electricity trends are rising until the cost of mining reaches above payout, there is no "exponential curve until it consumes everything".