Kosovo pulls plug on energy-guzzling Bitcoin miners(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Kosovo pulls plug on energy-guzzling Bitcoin miners
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/16/panic-as-kosovo-pulls-the-plug-on-its-energy-guzzling-bitcoin-miners
251 comments
What would they have done if the ban did not occur and they raked in lots of cash?
Would they have donated it to the Kosovan public?
Of course not.
So they should not expect bailouts from the Kosovan public now.
Would they have donated it to the Kosovan public?
Of course not.
So they should not expect bailouts from the Kosovan public now.
To be fair, that's not a valid question.
Even if a company wouldn't donate any of their profits, if they make an investment based on laws, and the government then changes those laws to make what they are doing illegal, that's still an outcome that we should avoid; both out of a sense of fairness, but also out of self-interest, otherwise people will make fewer investments, which is a bad thing.
(Though no idea on the details in this specific case - I just dislike this question and its invalid assumption.)
Even if a company wouldn't donate any of their profits, if they make an investment based on laws, and the government then changes those laws to make what they are doing illegal, that's still an outcome that we should avoid; both out of a sense of fairness, but also out of self-interest, otherwise people will make fewer investments, which is a bad thing.
(Though no idea on the details in this specific case - I just dislike this question and its invalid assumption.)
Change of law risk is also a business risk. You can see this most clearly in situations like companies constructing tax avoidance schemes. Everyone involved knows that the law may well be changed to close the loophole being used. So the question is whether you can make a profit off the scheme before then. Ditto if you're a brewer and the state changes the alcohol laws in some unhelpful way. The situation here isn't that different.
I agree completely. Businesses need to "price in" these possibilities.
But, I was answering the conclusion of parent's post:
> So they should not expect bailouts from the Kosovan public now.
Bailouts might make sense if the government broke an implicit or explicit promise to the company about what kind of business can be done.
But, I was answering the conclusion of parent's post:
> So they should not expect bailouts from the Kosovan public now.
Bailouts might make sense if the government broke an implicit or explicit promise to the company about what kind of business can be done.
I see, good point.
Of course they would, it's called tax.
How do you tax the bitcoins?
You don't, you tax mining as an economic activity with profit like any other.
you get bitcoins in, pay with bitcoins out, (mind you effectively untraceable); take them out of the country as well.
The thing will out generate money, until the government recognizes bitcoins as an asset and requires moving those assets to be centralized, tracked, you can't do anything about. So prior taxation, it has to be regulated.
The thing will out generate money, until the government recognizes bitcoins as an asset and requires moving those assets to be centralized, tracked, you can't do anything about. So prior taxation, it has to be regulated.
No not really, miners pay electricity with cash, they are constantly selling at least the cost amount of whatever they mine. Also big mining facillities are really easily traceable.
And that's the problem China and governments banning it have. There is no easy way to force someone to give it up, since it can't be taken by force.
Everyone who owns cryptocurrency is cashing out to dollars, euros RMB etc because you can't use memecoins to buy a Lamborghini.
That is cryptocurrency's point of failure.
No, but you use it to exchange titles at low cost with a global market.
Uuuh the large scale mining operations can easily be detected through their power use.
Then warrants can be served equipment can be confiscated and people be put in front of a judge
Then warrants can be served equipment can be confiscated and people be put in front of a judge
China banned it for urgent energy reasons.
Taxing it is easy, tax the transaction which is public on the blockchain.
Institute KYC rules and enforce them, punishing anyone who holds an anonymous wallet.
Bitcoin isn’t some magical thing; the old crowbars reverse engineering works even better on it since all transactions are public on the blockchain forever.
Taxing it is easy, tax the transaction which is public on the blockchain.
Institute KYC rules and enforce them, punishing anyone who holds an anonymous wallet.
Bitcoin isn’t some magical thing; the old crowbars reverse engineering works even better on it since all transactions are public on the blockchain forever.
> There is no easy way to force someone to give it up
Isn't it about as difficult as asking someone for their cash? People aren't happy to part with it, but the $5 xkcd wrench usually does it.
You can hide a paper wallet or storage medium in a sock at a friend's house, but that's no different from cash. Cash is also easy to spend anonymously; try hiding a bitcoin transaction from others or make its traces vanish to avoid problems later.
I don't foresee many issues with banning bitcoin at all, it's more of a political problem.
Isn't it about as difficult as asking someone for their cash? People aren't happy to part with it, but the $5 xkcd wrench usually does it.
You can hide a paper wallet or storage medium in a sock at a friend's house, but that's no different from cash. Cash is also easy to spend anonymously; try hiding a bitcoin transaction from others or make its traces vanish to avoid problems later.
I don't foresee many issues with banning bitcoin at all, it's more of a political problem.
Cash is highly regulated, in a lot of EU countries it's not even possible to spend too much cash in a shop in a single transaction. Cash transactions over XXX amount (few thousands) require identity and they have to be reported by the seller as well. Carrying over 10k euro in cash has to be declared during air travel too.
“I remand you to the custody of the prison system until you reveal your Bitcoin wallet passphrase.”
Now the detainee gets to choose between remaining in prison or giving up their assets.
Now the detainee gets to choose between remaining in prison or giving up their assets.
>in prison or giving up their assets.
This is too much a TV show story. Since the state doesn't really know how much bitcoins they have, the key owner can share only a fraction of their wallets (and they can have as many wallets as they please).
Without crypto currency being regulated, state can seize the physical assets but getting all the bitcoins is highly unlikely.
This is too much a TV show story. Since the state doesn't really know how much bitcoins they have, the key owner can share only a fraction of their wallets (and they can have as many wallets as they please).
Without crypto currency being regulated, state can seize the physical assets but getting all the bitcoins is highly unlikely.
That argument runs afoul of: https://xkcd.com/538/
In the real world refusal to pay a fine or surrender an item is itself a crime and punishable with state power. You're right that the government can't extract crypto assets without the consent of those controlling the relevant keys. You're forgetting the depth of ability of a government to compel consent.
In the real world refusal to pay a fine or surrender an item is itself a crime and punishable with state power. You're right that the government can't extract crypto assets without the consent of those controlling the relevant keys. You're forgetting the depth of ability of a government to compel consent.
This simple fact dismantles a pillar of crypto evangelism.
No, you, can't exist outside of society and its influence, even if your "money" is digital.
No, you, can't exist outside of society and its influence, even if your "money" is digital.
This. On top of it all the evidence needed to charge you for years to come is conveniently left on the immutable blockchain.
These are just bullshit libertarian feel good narratives that are as realistic as people declaring themselves sovereign citizens
These are just bullshit libertarian feel good narratives that are as realistic as people declaring themselves sovereign citizens
Sales tax, VAT.
They need to eat, buy cars, houses.
If they have more money they buy more -> more tax income.
They need to eat, buy cars, houses.
If they have more money they buy more -> more tax income.
I don't think you know Kosovo.
Sales tax is regressive, so that doesn't add up.
How it is regressive? It is quite equal percent-wise, how all taxes should be.
The mining equipment value hasn’t gone to $0. The miners who dismantle their rigs are just going to sell it off to someone in another country.
If value of a commodity is predicated on scarcity - eg gold - then isn’t it the case that Bitcoin is actually using energy as the scarce commodity on which its value is based?
Unfortunately, production of energy is one of the very things which is driving one of our biggest global problems - global warming.
I don’t see how the two can be decoupled.
Unfortunately, production of energy is one of the very things which is driving one of our biggest global problems - global warming.
I don’t see how the two can be decoupled.
> then isn’t it the case that Bitcoin is actually using energy as the scarce commodity on which its value is based?
Bitcoin’s value isn’t coupled to energy. However, it does have a perverse incentive to miners to consume as much energy as possible.
Each additional miner that comes online doesn’t really add anything of value to the network at this point. It just consumes more energy. Each miner plays a game of maximizing their own energy usage to maximize their take of the fixed rewards structure.
It has to be the single most inefficient large-scale engineering project I can think of, and certainly the only one that literally pays people globally to make it less and less efficient.
Bitcoin’s value isn’t coupled to energy. However, it does have a perverse incentive to miners to consume as much energy as possible.
Each additional miner that comes online doesn’t really add anything of value to the network at this point. It just consumes more energy. Each miner plays a game of maximizing their own energy usage to maximize their take of the fixed rewards structure.
It has to be the single most inefficient large-scale engineering project I can think of, and certainly the only one that literally pays people globally to make it less and less efficient.
I think it's more that case that it's a transfer mechanism. It transfers the irrefutability of transactions into an energy cost.
The reason it consumes so much energy is because people really don't trust each other.
The reason it consumes so much energy is because people really don't trust each other.
> because people really don't trust each other
Not necessary people in general. But people interested in crypto certainly don't trust each other.
Not necessary people in general. But people interested in crypto certainly don't trust each other.
If the constant scams in cryptocurrency space show anything it's that they trust each other way too much. "Trust less" is a sort of aesthetic pose more than anything
Closer. The user-agents running Bitcoin (nodes) are performing an algorithm that was purposely designed such that all such user-agents are mutually distrusting.
My second point also includes that people are willing to spend all of this energy for mining because of the Bitcoin value. I'm suggesting that people are in because they distrust the current currency system: The more they distrust other currency, the more Bitcoin they buy, the higher the energy costs as more participate, the more irrefutable the ledger, the more energy is spent...
So the more demand there is for irrefutability, the higher the energy costs.
So the more demand there is for irrefutability, the higher the energy costs.
Most people buy Bitcoin on exchanges. That negates trustlessness
A crypto exchange is not part of a blockchain's protocol.
Its a distribution layer built on top of it.
Its a distribution layer built on top of it.
That's fine, I'm just telling you that these people clearly are not interested in the properties of the blockchain itself
> people really don't trust each other
Not even that. A large majority of Bitcoin holders actually store 'their' Bitcoin in exchanges (who are known to be completely untrustworthy). Binance's cold wallet is actually the largest single holder of Bitcoin. It's just a get rich quick scheme
Not even that. A large majority of Bitcoin holders actually store 'their' Bitcoin in exchanges (who are known to be completely untrustworthy). Binance's cold wallet is actually the largest single holder of Bitcoin. It's just a get rich quick scheme
Not denying that there's a HUGE bubble in it with hustlers and suckers.
That there's a link between how irrefutable the ledger is and the energy cost/how distributed the miners are is what I find quite interesting. It's not quite E=mc^2, but it feels like it's getting there.
That there's a link between how irrefutable the ledger is and the energy cost/how distributed the miners are is what I find quite interesting. It's not quite E=mc^2, but it feels like it's getting there.
Most of the world's gold is stored in central bank vaults guarded round the clock by armed guards.
What does this quality imply for most commodities?
What does this quality imply for most commodities?
> Bitcoin’s value isn’t coupled to energy.
Then what would happen if the energy and materials needed to compute the hashes were literally zero cost?
Then what would happen if the energy and materials needed to compute the hashes were literally zero cost?
Then mining operations would expand further until they hit some other cost constraint, like labor.
"Bitcoin’s value isn’t coupled to energy."
Sorry, but it is?
"The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended."
Sorry, but it is?
"The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended."
They are coupled, but the BTC price is the independent variable, because of the difficulty adjustment.
If the price rises, the mining becomes more profitable, more miners jump in, and mining gets more difficult so the issuance rate stays roughly constant.
If the price falls, mining becomes less profitable, some miners drop out, and to keep issuance from slowing down the difficulty is decreased.
Whatever the price does, the energy usage follows. So we can't really say that energy usage is the foundation of BTC's value, it's the other way around.
If the price rises, the mining becomes more profitable, more miners jump in, and mining gets more difficult so the issuance rate stays roughly constant.
If the price falls, mining becomes less profitable, some miners drop out, and to keep issuance from slowing down the difficulty is decreased.
Whatever the price does, the energy usage follows. So we can't really say that energy usage is the foundation of BTC's value, it's the other way around.
So we are literally killing ourselves to get rich. If a powerful alien race stumbled on the human race they would be compelled to destroy us to save the universe.
That reminds me of this comic strip: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/KvypGc1
We are now the alien species in a forgettiable early season episode of Star Trek TNG.
“We mine things to make cash flow”?
We have been killing ourselves (and each other) to get rich for millenia. It's nothing new. But, we've also been doing many productive things for the sake of getting rich and accumulating useful capital, and these vastly outnumber the destructive things we do, which is why we're still here and by all measurements, better off and more peaceful than we ever have been previously as a species. That's one thing.
The second thing is that there's no certainty that bitcoin mining is actually causing us to kill ourselves or that it causes meaningful levels of harm. Lots of panicky hand waving around the subject, but little concrete evidence of the hysterical thing you stated.
Furthermore, energy consumption per se is not inherently bad, even for very dubious uses. It's how you procure your energy that defines harm, not that you use lots of it. If for example, we were seeing people mine bitcoin with say, solar power, or mini nuclear fusion reactors, it wouldn't matter that they choose to use energy they paid for on something some perceive as wasteful.
The second thing is that there's no certainty that bitcoin mining is actually causing us to kill ourselves or that it causes meaningful levels of harm. Lots of panicky hand waving around the subject, but little concrete evidence of the hysterical thing you stated.
Furthermore, energy consumption per se is not inherently bad, even for very dubious uses. It's how you procure your energy that defines harm, not that you use lots of it. If for example, we were seeing people mine bitcoin with say, solar power, or mini nuclear fusion reactors, it wouldn't matter that they choose to use energy they paid for on something some perceive as wasteful.
Actually, no, cryptocurrencies offer a way to monetize inexpensive energy production in places with energy surpluses that can't easily move energy to places that need it.
>I don’t see how the two can be decoupled.
A Bitcoin miner powered by a solar panel isn't contributing to global warming beyond the manufacture of the solar panel. The problem is how we generate energy.
If someone wants to consume electricity mining bitcoin thats every bit as valid use as their time as playing video games imo. I choose to play games because I prefer that.
A Bitcoin miner powered by a solar panel isn't contributing to global warming beyond the manufacture of the solar panel. The problem is how we generate energy.
If someone wants to consume electricity mining bitcoin thats every bit as valid use as their time as playing video games imo. I choose to play games because I prefer that.
> beyond the manufacture of the solar panel
Should we count the cost of manufacturing the computer(s) doing the work? More so if ASIC? The recycling-or-not of same?
I’ve been thinking about “mining something” since I will soon have a surplus of solar energy I can’t sell back into the grid. Not a ton but enough to maybe join a pool and make a small profit.
But even then it strikes me as wasteful… gotta do something with that box when it’s obsolete.
Should we count the cost of manufacturing the computer(s) doing the work? More so if ASIC? The recycling-or-not of same?
I’ve been thinking about “mining something” since I will soon have a surplus of solar energy I can’t sell back into the grid. Not a ton but enough to maybe join a pool and make a small profit.
But even then it strikes me as wasteful… gotta do something with that box when it’s obsolete.
a) > If value of a commodity is predicated on scarcity
No economist would say the value of anything is based on scarcity. Scarcity is basically a code word for supply. The value of things is determined by the intersection of supply and demand, not supply floating in a vacuum.
b) > If value of a commodity is predicated on scarcity - eg gold - then isn’t it the case that Bitcoin is actually using energy as the scarce commodity on which its value is based?
What are you even trying to say here? Do we say cars are subject to some impossible contadiction because they consume energy? Do we say the heater in your home is valueless because it consumes energy? Do we say your bank is somehow invalid because it's operations consume energy? What does any of this have to do with the fact that bitcoin doesn't have an unlimited supply (ie is scarce)? This is complete gibberish.
No economist would say the value of anything is based on scarcity. Scarcity is basically a code word for supply. The value of things is determined by the intersection of supply and demand, not supply floating in a vacuum.
b) > If value of a commodity is predicated on scarcity - eg gold - then isn’t it the case that Bitcoin is actually using energy as the scarce commodity on which its value is based?
What are you even trying to say here? Do we say cars are subject to some impossible contadiction because they consume energy? Do we say the heater in your home is valueless because it consumes energy? Do we say your bank is somehow invalid because it's operations consume energy? What does any of this have to do with the fact that bitcoin doesn't have an unlimited supply (ie is scarce)? This is complete gibberish.
Energy use is being decoupled from global warming at an ever increasing pace. It may be too late, but to say it cannot be done is nonsense. There's a constellation of social reasons that it may not be done, but it can.
> Energy use is being decoupled from global warming at an ever increasing pace.
Unfortunately this seems to be more like wishful thinking. As one example: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
Unfortunately this seems to be more like wishful thinking. As one example: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...
This is something that even the most die hard BTC fans should be happy about.
We can't go around claiming BTC is green while mining in countries that use the dirtiest of the dirtiest coal for their energy.
We can't go around claiming BTC is green while mining in countries that use the dirtiest of the dirtiest coal for their energy.
> We can't go around claiming BTC is green
It is designed to be energy inefficient so we can't go around claiming it anyway.
It is designed to be energy inefficient so we can't go around claiming it anyway.
>>We can't go around claiming BTC is green
Has anyone, anywhere, actually convinced someone that BTC is green?
Has anyone, anywhere, actually convinced someone that BTC is green?
They haven't done much to convince an impartial outside observer, but they have muddied the water enough that people invested in it can sleep at night. As the Upton Sinclair quote goes, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
The latest talking point is to claim that it incentivizes clean energy production and that’s a good thing.
The argument is bananas, but that’s the line that Bitcoin celebrities like @jack have been pushing.
The argument is bananas, but that’s the line that Bitcoin celebrities like @jack have been pushing.
I like Jacks arguments, they seem informed and data driven.
Do you think yourself or @Jack has better perspective and visibility of planetary money flows, inflation, energy productive and distribution and peer to peer payments and networks?
Do you think yourself or @Jack has better perspective and visibility of planetary money flows, inflation, energy productive and distribution and peer to peer payments and networks?
I've seen arguments on HN that the whole energy consumed for crypto (speculation by a few thousand persons) is equivalent to the consumption of classic payment infrastructure (used for billions of transactions every day). And that's by including bank buildings, airplane travels by anyone related to fiat transactions, etc.
https://www.dnb.nl/actueel/algemeen-nieuws/dnbulletin-2022/b...
It is in Dutch but there is a link to English PDF.
DNB is the Dutch equivalent of the Fed.
It is in Dutch but there is a link to English PDF.
DNB is the Dutch equivalent of the Fed.
Isn't it?
Did someone sum up all the environmental impact of all the dollar infrastructure? Including airplane fuel used by executives traveling all over the place?
Did they include the costs of all of the corruption and downstream impacts, like when Wells Fargo opened all of those savings accounts fraudulently? The damage caused to various populations by sanctions from foreign governments?
> Has anyone, anywhere, actually convinced someone that BTC is green?
It's at least an argument that is used, see here e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29839868
It's at least an argument that is used, see here e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29839868
> The largest-scale crypto mining is thought to be taking place in the north of the country, where the Serb-majority population refuse to recognise Kosovo as an independent state and have consequently not paid for electricity for more than two decades.
So how exactly are they mining if they aren't paying for electricity ? Illegally connected to the grid and/or bribed someone from the electric company to turn a blind eye ?
So how exactly are they mining if they aren't paying for electricity ? Illegally connected to the grid and/or bribed someone from the electric company to turn a blind eye ?
It's far more complex a situation than the article makes it seem. This one explains it much better: https://balkaninsight.com/2021/11/23/kosovo-to-end-free-ener...
And how is this ban going to be enforced if they can't even enforce energy bills to be paid?
They signed a dumb deal with serbia. The serb community doesn't pay the energy bill until a final deal is reached with serbia on the EU facilitated dialogue. I don't know the details of this, but that's a tl;dr version!
Maybe the government is scared to allow powered to be turned off, fearing an uprising among the Serbs, potentially giving Serbian a reason to interven?
What will happen if more countries ban crypto mining, say the US? Would that leave mining under Russian control? In that case could Bitcoin be embargoed, because they’re “made” in Russia?
Personally I don’t see the value in crypto-currencies, but that doesn’t mean it not useful to someone. The crypto community should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin, before the whole thing is regulated away. Right now it’s pretty hard to defend Bitcoin, based on the environmental impact alone.
Personally I don’t see the value in crypto-currencies, but that doesn’t mean it not useful to someone. The crypto community should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin, before the whole thing is regulated away. Right now it’s pretty hard to defend Bitcoin, based on the environmental impact alone.
>The crypto community should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin
It cannot be addressed. By definition. It's not like sadly there is a part of the Bitcoin algorithm that is very expensive computationally and therefore energetically and if we could only optimize that part the problem would go away. There is an intentionally hard part that is a part of the Bitcoin protocol to make the Proof-of-Work algorithm, that obviates the need for a central source of authority or trust, work.
Anybody who tells you that Bitcoin will overcome the exorbitant energy needs is ignorant or a scam artist.
It cannot be addressed. By definition. It's not like sadly there is a part of the Bitcoin algorithm that is very expensive computationally and therefore energetically and if we could only optimize that part the problem would go away. There is an intentionally hard part that is a part of the Bitcoin protocol to make the Proof-of-Work algorithm, that obviates the need for a central source of authority or trust, work.
Anybody who tells you that Bitcoin will overcome the exorbitant energy needs is ignorant or a scam artist.
If the use of it is banned in just a few major economies (ie banned in the sense of blocking contact points with the regular economy in the conversion to traditional currency or purchase /sale of goods or services) then the value of BTC would tank, no?
BTC doesn’t need to overcome its energy needs, so long as people just stop wasting any energy. There is an infinity of things with massive wasteful energy use that no one does (such as sending rocks into space or boiling lakes for fun) simply because there is no financial gain.
BTC doesn’t need to overcome its energy needs, so long as people just stop wasting any energy. There is an infinity of things with massive wasteful energy use that no one does (such as sending rocks into space or boiling lakes for fun) simply because there is no financial gain.
If BTC is altogether banned probably. If just mining is banned then probably not.
Yeah, isn't it kinda on purpose ?
I always understand it as a way for anyone anywhere being able to join just with a computer and electricity, without having to beg any existing centralized entity for permission to exchange their "real" money for the crypto tokens.
And it seems to have been right, as exchanges are indeed where most fraud happens a what is actually targeted when a government does not like a cryptocurrency.
Still not sure how one is supposed to avoid this without handing over the given crypto network to a centralized entity that decides who gets what.
I always understand it as a way for anyone anywhere being able to join just with a computer and electricity, without having to beg any existing centralized entity for permission to exchange their "real" money for the crypto tokens.
And it seems to have been right, as exchanges are indeed where most fraud happens a what is actually targeted when a government does not like a cryptocurrency.
Still not sure how one is supposed to avoid this without handing over the given crypto network to a centralized entity that decides who gets what.
That is exactly correct. And proof of work solves a problem that was thought unsolvable. So no other solution is likely to appear soon. None yet. (Proof of stake just recreates the problem.)
What is the problem with PoS that you speak about?
> https://endthefud.org/PoW
Hardly an unbiased source (has "The best links to articles debunking Bitcoin FUD " as the subtitle). I read through some of the links and they are all high on big words and philosophy.
We will know soon enough whether there's merit to any of these. Ethereum plans to move to PoS early this year so we'll have a real world data point.
Hardly an unbiased source (has "The best links to articles debunking Bitcoin FUD " as the subtitle). I read through some of the links and they are all high on big words and philosophy.
We will know soon enough whether there's merit to any of these. Ethereum plans to move to PoS early this year so we'll have a real world data point.
Would moving to proof-of-stake help reduce energy (as used in newer Ethereum)? (less secure, but more energy efficient/faster)
Next step: one dude in a basement with an Excel sheet. Can also process 4 transactions per second (if typing fast), a bit less secure, but much more energy efficient. (Note: at BTC's cost of US$ 1.5 million per hour, we can also hire a few trustworthy people to stand behind the dude and make sure that there's no cheating, and still be more efficient.)
Ethereum's proof of stake currently has a quarter million validators, so it's arguably a bit more secure and decentralized than one dude with an Excel sheet.
What about Iota coin or just using GPG signatures?
The way to address bitcoin energy usage is to build your own renewable energy sources to power your bitcoin mining. And sell electricity to the grid when it's more profitable than mining.
Maybe Bitcoin people could finance nuclear fusion research to keep up with the energy consumption.
Compared to fusion, the better play is in space-based powersats and off-planet computation. BTC on cubesats. Then what will they complain about?
Kessler syndrome
>should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin
Proof of work is the core of bitcoin; it has a built-in deflation on top it. In short it won't happen. And yes, if someone mentions proof of stake, there is still no working case for it.
Proof of work is the core of bitcoin; it has a built-in deflation on top it. In short it won't happen. And yes, if someone mentions proof of stake, there is still no working case for it.
Isn't Ethereum using proof-of-stake since a recent update? (I'm not an expert in this though)
It's running a proof-of-stake network in parallel to the main chain, which is still running proof-of-work. The proof-of-stake network has been running for a bit over a year and has $30 billion in ETH deposited. Code for merging the two networks and eliminating mining is on a public test net right now. Previous upgrades have gone live within a year of the launch of their public test nets.
> Previous upgrades have gone live within a year of the launch of their public test nets.
I didn't know that, but it helps with my hope that PoS will become the default. People bringing up how long they've been trying to switch had been hurting my confidence.
I didn't know that, but it helps with my hope that PoS will become the default. People bringing up how long they've been trying to switch had been hurting my confidence.
Might use it in June, unless they push it further (like they did previously).
I think Chia makes a pretty good case here — same Nakamoto consensus security guarantees as Bitcoin only using hard drive space instead of processor power so the ongoing energy use is vastly less. There are around ~350k full nodes today (compared to bitcoin's 15k) and it uses about 400x less power: https://chiapower.org/
I farm it completely with old hard drives that I had lying around that weren't being used anyway.
I farm it completely with old hard drives that I had lying around that weren't being used anyway.
Chia has weaker guarantees than Nakamoto consensus.
Every proof-of-work solution in Bitcoin commits to the transaction history, but the proofs-of-space in Chia only commit to the farmer public key.
Which is used to separately sign for a block of transactions. Which allows a collusion of recent farmers to produce alternate transaction histories at no cost.
Every proof-of-work solution in Bitcoin commits to the transaction history, but the proofs-of-space in Chia only commit to the farmer public key.
Which is used to separately sign for a block of transactions. Which allows a collusion of recent farmers to produce alternate transaction histories at no cost.
You could be right! Do you have any evidence, research, or other supporting arguments that show what you're claiming?
See https://docs.chia.net/docs/03consensus/foliage/
"farmers could theoretically create a foliage re-org where foliage is replaced"
As you can see, Chia devs consider this an impractical attack. But it's definitely a weaker security guarantee than what PoW provides.
"farmers could theoretically create a foliage re-org where foliage is replaced"
As you can see, Chia devs consider this an impractical attack. But it's definitely a weaker security guarantee than what PoW provides.
Ah, thanks for the link! It seems what you're saying is right — the security guarantees of Chia are not the EXACT same as Bitcoin, but it's not clear to me that this means they're "weaker" for the reason you described.
> As soon as one honest farmer has added a foliage block, the foliage becomes impossible to re-org beyond that height with the same PoSpace
With ~350k Chia full nodes, the likelihood of colluding farmers being able to pull this off is a lot lower than if there were only the ~14k full nodes of Bitcoin, no? And Chia is still pretty new — it had a maximum of ~750k full nodes before.
I guess it's kind of a trade-off, huh? Bitcoin's big centralized pools are a worrying source of attack that's not there in Chia (the official pooling protocol has the farmers sign blocks so it's completely decentralized and pools using it can't orchestrate attacks). https://docs.chia.net/docs/11pooling/pooling
> As soon as one honest farmer has added a foliage block, the foliage becomes impossible to re-org beyond that height with the same PoSpace
With ~350k Chia full nodes, the likelihood of colluding farmers being able to pull this off is a lot lower than if there were only the ~14k full nodes of Bitcoin, no? And Chia is still pretty new — it had a maximum of ~750k full nodes before.
I guess it's kind of a trade-off, huh? Bitcoin's big centralized pools are a worrying source of attack that's not there in Chia (the official pooling protocol has the farmers sign blocks so it's completely decentralized and pools using it can't orchestrate attacks). https://docs.chia.net/docs/11pooling/pooling
Huh. I have nearly 100tb in unused but brand new hard drives. Might be worth using them to help create an energy efficient alternative to bitcoin.
So instead of wrecking the GPU market we would move to wrecking the HDD market?
I'm not sure if you're interested in discussing or just want to do a drive-by criticism, but that's actually an interesting question!
Currently 1.5 zettabytes of new HDDs are sold each year which is around $65 billion. So HDDs are a pretty mature market with massive data centers buying most of that storage.
One of the hypotheses with Chia was that there is a lot of over-provisioned storage already out in the world — on both consumer and idle enterprise drives. This is in line with the original intent of Bitcoin that anyone could mine which would make the network more secure.
It's obviously cheaper to use existing storage to secure the Chia blockchain than to buy new drives so the market will move toward maximally using existing storage. Datacenters could use their existing idle storage for Chia farming before a more lucrative use came along. And the storage doesn't need to be very reliable for Chia farming, so old hard drives that are no longer viable from datacenters can be used (apparently datacenters just destroy HDDs outright currently?)
Currently there are about 35 exabytes of storage in the Chia network, which is about 2-3% of the entire yearly supply of HDDs. Given that supply chains weren't really disrupted, I think it's pretty safe to say that the Chia bet was right and that it's actually utilizing a bunch of unused space already out in the world. And the IDC agrees: https://idcdocserv.com/US47836321
Now, obviously if the market valued Chia extremely highly then supplies of HDDs would be impacted. But I wonder how much that would affect everyday folks like you and I since most storage in devices are now SSDs, which are not very storage-dense so aren't really as economical for Chia. Would it be the case that consumers couldn't buy HDDs? At some coin price, yeah, definitely. I have no idea what that price could be.
Currently 1.5 zettabytes of new HDDs are sold each year which is around $65 billion. So HDDs are a pretty mature market with massive data centers buying most of that storage.
One of the hypotheses with Chia was that there is a lot of over-provisioned storage already out in the world — on both consumer and idle enterprise drives. This is in line with the original intent of Bitcoin that anyone could mine which would make the network more secure.
It's obviously cheaper to use existing storage to secure the Chia blockchain than to buy new drives so the market will move toward maximally using existing storage. Datacenters could use their existing idle storage for Chia farming before a more lucrative use came along. And the storage doesn't need to be very reliable for Chia farming, so old hard drives that are no longer viable from datacenters can be used (apparently datacenters just destroy HDDs outright currently?)
Currently there are about 35 exabytes of storage in the Chia network, which is about 2-3% of the entire yearly supply of HDDs. Given that supply chains weren't really disrupted, I think it's pretty safe to say that the Chia bet was right and that it's actually utilizing a bunch of unused space already out in the world. And the IDC agrees: https://idcdocserv.com/US47836321
Now, obviously if the market valued Chia extremely highly then supplies of HDDs would be impacted. But I wonder how much that would affect everyday folks like you and I since most storage in devices are now SSDs, which are not very storage-dense so aren't really as economical for Chia. Would it be the case that consumers couldn't buy HDDs? At some coin price, yeah, definitely. I have no idea what that price could be.
The big private players in Crypto who have invested a lot of money and time would not let US government ban mining.
There are equally big or larger players with an entrenched interest in the "regular" financial system. The environmental lobby is no slouch either. Crypto mining will only remain legal if it can defeat both of those groups and merely having a few billionaires on your side is not enough when the other side has more of them.
The fossil fuel companies have been largely unable to stop environmental regulation (though they've arguably been able to slow them down in the US somewhat); I'm not sure that a few VC firms would necessarily be able to stop the government in its tracks.
Like, the big private players in crypto-nonsense just aren't _that_ big.
Like, the big private players in crypto-nonsense just aren't _that_ big.
Let’s play a game of who has more influence:
A16Z or Goldman Sachs?
Block or JP Morgan Chase?
Coinbase or Vanguard?
A16Z or Goldman Sachs?
Block or JP Morgan Chase?
Coinbase or Vanguard?
Developing countries are more likely to ban crypto mining because they subsidize electricity prices. Economically it just doesn’t make sense for them, though one could easily argue that their utility pricing is designed to be gamed in the first place. Developed countries are much less likely to ban crypto mining because they charge market rates (or more) for electricity. Russia, ironically, fits more into the former rather than latter category, so they might just ban crypto mining as a pragmatic concern.
Do you think hair dryers should be banned? Are clothes dryers indefensible? They all are unnecessary- just hang clothes up.
And use dar more power than bitcoin.
And use dar more power than bitcoin.
All of this is already happening. In the EU energy efficiency labels are being put on household appliances and cars. Clothes dryers have them, vacuums have them, washing machines and dishwashers, too. It's not allowed to sell things that waste more energy than it's currently technologically necessary (within reason).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_energy_label
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_energy_label
If there is a proper alternative such as LEDs were when Incandescent bulbs were banned then yes they can and should be banned. Unlike lightbulbs where the heat was waste, hair drivers are unlikely to see such alternatives though. But on principle yes, when there is an alternative the wasteful solution can be banned (or taxed, or the alternative subsidized etc)
I’ll consider a heat pump dryer[0] when mine breaks, which has the potential to make the device way more efficient as the technology improves.
0: https://www.energystar.gov/products/heat_pump_dryer
0: https://www.energystar.gov/products/heat_pump_dryer
I can personally recommend baldness as a highly energy efficient alternative.
> Are clothes dryers indefensible?
So the trend there has been for reduction in use in energy (particularly in Europe, where the regulators are leaning on the manufacturers). A modern heat pump dryer is far more efficient than a traditional dryer, say, and will be the dominant type in Europe soon, and probably shortly afterwards in the US.
Crypto-nonsense, on the other hand, tends to use _more_ energy over time.
And, frankly, if you banned hairdryers and clothes dryers, literally billions of people would be very annoyed. If you banned crypto-stuff tomorrow, certain parts of twitter would be very annoyed, and the vast majority of people would not even _notice_. Totally different political calculus.
So the trend there has been for reduction in use in energy (particularly in Europe, where the regulators are leaning on the manufacturers). A modern heat pump dryer is far more efficient than a traditional dryer, say, and will be the dominant type in Europe soon, and probably shortly afterwards in the US.
Crypto-nonsense, on the other hand, tends to use _more_ energy over time.
And, frankly, if you banned hairdryers and clothes dryers, literally billions of people would be very annoyed. If you banned crypto-stuff tomorrow, certain parts of twitter would be very annoyed, and the vast majority of people would not even _notice_. Totally different political calculus.
If hair dryers or clothes dryers used the proof-of-work algorithm--which is designed to be wasteful--then yes, I would ban them.
Actually a dryer that uses POW generated heat would be much less wasteful than just heating up air, it would produce the same amount of heat per watt and it would do something useful with it.
"useful" I take it you've never had long hair?
Except that isn't true. The chip in the hair dryer would become obsolete before it ever mined a block, so your expensive hair dryer would be even more wasteful. What a ridiculous proposition.
I take it you are not familiar with POW mining? You don’t have to mine a full block, you get paid for any fractional contribution.
Any device that converts energy to heat can be replaced by another that converts the same amount of energy to the same amount of heat while doing POW work.
Any device that converts energy to heat can be replaced by another that converts the same amount of energy to the same amount of heat while doing POW work.
Last I checked, Bitcoin didn't automatically give fractional mining rewards, and one needed to join a mining pool for that.
But it doesn't matter, because the reward would be so small in this case that it wouldn't outweigh the cost of buying a chip to put in an appliance. If you think I'm wrong, then by all means mine hardware with all of your heating devices. Hell, if the money is really there, create a startup selling mining appliances and get rich. It's easy money, right? Start today.
But it doesn't matter, because the reward would be so small in this case that it wouldn't outweigh the cost of buying a chip to put in an appliance. If you think I'm wrong, then by all means mine hardware with all of your heating devices. Hell, if the money is really there, create a startup selling mining appliances and get rich. It's easy money, right? Start today.
Honestly if we could limit mining to heating up buildings/hair/whatever, that would solve the problem for a good while. Maybe one day we'll all be on heat pumps and geothermal, but we're not quite there yet.
Only pump Bitcoin is good at is pump and dump.
There is not really an efficiency difference between creating heat from electricity with a space heater and creating heat from electricity with a computer.
Not sure if you were just joking or if you simply didn't know that miners can double as heaters without loss (or if you meant something else).
Not sure if you were just joking or if you simply didn't know that miners can double as heaters without loss (or if you meant something else).
Yeah. There is. Heaters don't cost thousands of dollars, maybe more for ASIC.
Also heaters are way better at converting energy to heat, since they don't have to do the whole mining thing. And they can reach higher temperatures without frying themselves. Being a simple resistor rather than complex logical circuit.
If I spend 1kWh to just warm water vs I spend some part of that 1kWh to mine bitcoin and warm water, the former will be more efficient.
Also heaters are way better at converting energy to heat, since they don't have to do the whole mining thing. And they can reach higher temperatures without frying themselves. Being a simple resistor rather than complex logical circuit.
If I spend 1kWh to just warm water vs I spend some part of that 1kWh to mine bitcoin and warm water, the former will be more efficient.
> Heaters don't cost thousands of dollars
Sure but the point is that this will be earned back easily. If it didn't turn a profit then nobody would buy them today, let alone when they have an extra purpose.
> they can reach higher temperatures without frying themselves
Sure, we can't replace industrial processes like forging steel with mining. But residential heating requires no more than, say, 70°C which is easily within reach of any chip today. I was specifically talking about replacing something like a space heater, not a process that needs hundreds of degrees.
> If I spend 1kWh to just warm water vs I spend some part of that 1kWh to mine bitcoin and warm water, the former will be more efficient.
Is that so? How much then? Because I've always heard it's 1:1 for all intents and purposes.
Edit: of course I have to look it up myself... https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Gaming-PC-vs-Spac... Looking at the graph, it's like I said /edit.
---
Note I'm not saying this is necessarily a good idea, it seems ripe for abuse (running the miner also when you don't need the heat) and we'd have more chip shortage issues, but I am interested from a technological standpoint. It seemed to me like it would be an improvement if their waste heat was used.
Sure but the point is that this will be earned back easily. If it didn't turn a profit then nobody would buy them today, let alone when they have an extra purpose.
> they can reach higher temperatures without frying themselves
Sure, we can't replace industrial processes like forging steel with mining. But residential heating requires no more than, say, 70°C which is easily within reach of any chip today. I was specifically talking about replacing something like a space heater, not a process that needs hundreds of degrees.
> If I spend 1kWh to just warm water vs I spend some part of that 1kWh to mine bitcoin and warm water, the former will be more efficient.
Is that so? How much then? Because I've always heard it's 1:1 for all intents and purposes.
Edit: of course I have to look it up myself... https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Gaming-PC-vs-Spac... Looking at the graph, it's like I said /edit.
---
Note I'm not saying this is necessarily a good idea, it seems ripe for abuse (running the miner also when you don't need the heat) and we'd have more chip shortage issues, but I am interested from a technological standpoint. It seemed to me like it would be an improvement if their waste heat was used.
>Sure but the point is that this will be earned back easily.
No, it won't. Most chips go in the trash without ever mining a block. This is just more crypto theory that doesn't match reality.
If you find me a way to cut down on my heating costs in the winter using chips, you can bet I'm going to use it. The problem is, you can't.
No, it won't. Most chips go in the trash without ever mining a block. This is just more crypto theory that doesn't match reality.
If you find me a way to cut down on my heating costs in the winter using chips, you can bet I'm going to use it. The problem is, you can't.
This makes no sense.
"Most chips go in the trash without ever mining a block" that's your own choice, isn't it? If you don't want to waste the product you bought, don't trash it?
"This is just more [nonsense] crypto theory" I do not invest in cryptocurrency. I bought socks for like 2BTC back in the good old days when it wasn't yet apparent (to me at least) that bitcoin was going to be a major problem; bitcoin was interesting technology for teenage me back in 2012. I'm not some delusional trader that is making profit off the backs of everyone's climate and wants to justify mining. See basically everything else I said above. In particular the part where I said "Note I'm not saying this is necessarily a good idea, it seems ripe for abuse [...] but I am interested from a technological standpoint." The person was making technological arguments, not some nonsense about "crypto theory".
"If you find me a way..." Do you own a computer? There, turn it on during winter, have fun gaming. Now you're generating heat using electricity that you'd consume for gaming regardless.
"Most chips go in the trash without ever mining a block" that's your own choice, isn't it? If you don't want to waste the product you bought, don't trash it?
"This is just more [nonsense] crypto theory" I do not invest in cryptocurrency. I bought socks for like 2BTC back in the good old days when it wasn't yet apparent (to me at least) that bitcoin was going to be a major problem; bitcoin was interesting technology for teenage me back in 2012. I'm not some delusional trader that is making profit off the backs of everyone's climate and wants to justify mining. See basically everything else I said above. In particular the part where I said "Note I'm not saying this is necessarily a good idea, it seems ripe for abuse [...] but I am interested from a technological standpoint." The person was making technological arguments, not some nonsense about "crypto theory".
"If you find me a way..." Do you own a computer? There, turn it on during winter, have fun gaming. Now you're generating heat using electricity that you'd consume for gaming regardless.
>that's your own choice, isn't it? If you don't want to waste the product you bought, don't trash it?
I don't think you understand how all of this works. Mining chips have a lifespan, they don't last forever. They stop working, then you can't use them to compute hashes anymore. Most mining chips die--as in stop working--before they ever mine a block.
>turn it on during winter, have fun gaming.
I already do that. Mining Bitcoin to heat my home, on the other hand, will lose me money. I'll just burn through expensive chips without ever getting a reward, because a home mining rig can't compete with the industrial operations. The idea doesn't work.
I don't think you understand how all of this works. Mining chips have a lifespan, they don't last forever. They stop working, then you can't use them to compute hashes anymore. Most mining chips die--as in stop working--before they ever mine a block.
>turn it on during winter, have fun gaming.
I already do that. Mining Bitcoin to heat my home, on the other hand, will lose me money. I'll just burn through expensive chips without ever getting a reward, because a home mining rig can't compete with the industrial operations. The idea doesn't work.
Bitcoin mining is a waste of electricity. Energy is not a free resource.
"Real" money is essentially free. Only cost of producing real money is in materials needed to print a miniscule amount of it.
Vast percentage of money currently in circulation is already virtual - in the form of bits inside computers. Your bank has desks with computers, a server where the actual data is stored and a vault with a mandatory reserve in the form of printed currency.
So, only reasons to prefer Bitcoin are if you want to, for some reason, avoid the banking system or you don't have cash ready.
Either way, Bitcoin is a murky ground to tread on.
"Real" money is essentially free. Only cost of producing real money is in materials needed to print a miniscule amount of it.
Vast percentage of money currently in circulation is already virtual - in the form of bits inside computers. Your bank has desks with computers, a server where the actual data is stored and a vault with a mandatory reserve in the form of printed currency.
So, only reasons to prefer Bitcoin are if you want to, for some reason, avoid the banking system or you don't have cash ready.
Either way, Bitcoin is a murky ground to tread on.
There is a lack of knowledge about money here.
- Some countries are undergoing hyperinflation in which the value of their money decreases daily. Authoritative governments implement currency controls which prevent free market exchange for other currencies, and so citizens are forced to hold worthless bills.
- Electronic banking is mass surveilled and your bank and credit card companies are selling your data.
- The yield on a 10 year US treasury note is 1.79%. The interest rate on a Bank of America savings account is 0.01% APY. There is no "risk-free" return for savings in today's world; people are increasingly pushed to take risk just to keep up with inflation.
Everyone living in Western democracies think good times will last forever, that this kind of debt and money creation is sustainable, and that the party will never end.
- Some countries are undergoing hyperinflation in which the value of their money decreases daily. Authoritative governments implement currency controls which prevent free market exchange for other currencies, and so citizens are forced to hold worthless bills.
- Electronic banking is mass surveilled and your bank and credit card companies are selling your data.
- The yield on a 10 year US treasury note is 1.79%. The interest rate on a Bank of America savings account is 0.01% APY. There is no "risk-free" return for savings in today's world; people are increasingly pushed to take risk just to keep up with inflation.
Everyone living in Western democracies think good times will last forever, that this kind of debt and money creation is sustainable, and that the party will never end.
Oh, the party will end, for sure.
But Bitcoin is not an answer to western consumerism. Nor will it prevent future debts. On the contrary, imagine what a shitshow it would be if someone started selling "bitcoin credit" to the masses. How would you keep the interest stable?
But Bitcoin is not an answer to western consumerism. Nor will it prevent future debts. On the contrary, imagine what a shitshow it would be if someone started selling "bitcoin credit" to the masses. How would you keep the interest stable?
I can tell you are not a Bitcoiner! It may well be something of a antidote to Western Consumerism. Some things I have experienced in my years:
* Consume less as I see how the time value of my money is preserved
* know that spending now means less in future, so weigh priorities of purchases
* priorities longer term thinking with regard to ownership of assets
* constantly consider the cost of capital and trade offs owning one instrument vs another
There is indeed a working credit market for Bitcoin backed tokens! The largest is aave, and interest rates are driven by liquidity pool usage and incentive programs by the chain devs. There is one level removed from the actual BTC but we are getting close here.
You can borrow WBTC right now, consumer facing defi!
* Consume less as I see how the time value of my money is preserved
* know that spending now means less in future, so weigh priorities of purchases
* priorities longer term thinking with regard to ownership of assets
* constantly consider the cost of capital and trade offs owning one instrument vs another
There is indeed a working credit market for Bitcoin backed tokens! The largest is aave, and interest rates are driven by liquidity pool usage and incentive programs by the chain devs. There is one level removed from the actual BTC but we are getting close here.
You can borrow WBTC right now, consumer facing defi!
Could there be a similar ban or some regulation on crypto mining in western countries?
I sure hope not. I don't want my government to tell me what I can and can not compute on my computer.
Well the government can sure as hell tell you not to compute child porn on your computer.
Agreed. If you care about CO2 emission, tackle that, directly. Canada has started to, for one.
It's dismaying: HN used to be pretty united about digital rights.
It's dismaying: HN used to be pretty united about digital rights.
No one would. If there is a ban it would be a ban on contact with the regular economy. It would be a ban on buying/selling dollars or goods/services with BTC. So you’d stop computing because if no one (or not enough people) can use the result of the computation there is no economic compensation for it.
To ban mining itself (calculation) you could only address things like construction permits or environmental permits for industrial mining operations. That’s also easy, and in no way interferes by saying what anyone “can compute”.
To ban mining itself (calculation) you could only address things like construction permits or environmental permits for industrial mining operations. That’s also easy, and in no way interferes by saying what anyone “can compute”.
Yes, it has already happened in the past [1] [2].
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/16/17128678/plattsburgh-new-... [2] https://www.govtech.com/policy/washington-utility-will-uphol...
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/16/17128678/plattsburgh-new-... [2] https://www.govtech.com/policy/washington-utility-will-uphol...
Where do you think Kosovo is?
East Europe. Also it won't be considered a Western country, even if you say it's in the central Europe (with the latter starting at the Ural mountain). The west is more of a cultural term than geographic one, e.g. Finland is West, but Estonia, Latvia and Bulgaria are not, even though their capitals are roughly at the same meridian... and Estonia & Finland having the same song as national anthem.
Have you ever been to any Baltic country?
Your argument is coming across as vaguely racist and appears to be based on nothing but the divisions imposed between the second and first world.
Your argument is coming across as vaguely racist and appears to be based on nothing but the divisions imposed between the second and first world.
>Have you ever been to any Baltic country?
All 4 of them (if you count Poland, counting Finland or Sweden would be even harder). Here is a Latvian joke about Estonia: "no sex or future in Estonia". I have been in pretty much any European country, minus Portugal. No idea where the racism idea comes from, though.
All 4 of them (if you count Poland, counting Finland or Sweden would be even harder). Here is a Latvian joke about Estonia: "no sex or future in Estonia". I have been in pretty much any European country, minus Portugal. No idea where the racism idea comes from, though.
There are only 3 Baltic countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_states), Neither Poland, Finland nor Sweden are Baltic.
Well that's the joke. Other than that I find Gdansk more similar to Riga than Warsaw.
This is as coherent as talking of "black culture". There is no west, people who use it are chinese to dismiss everything not chinese (so Japan is western) and the US uses it to force us to join their stuff.
At least in Italy we tend to consider the western/eastern division to be the ex iron curtain.
So here we would consider the balkans to be eastern.
So here we would consider the balkans to be eastern.
[deleted]
So you consider Kosovo to be a western country?
Im in China, yes. It s not Asian, it's not African, those people seem to live in the chistriano-muslim vector on the west of China, anyone here would say they're western.
So what exactly is the criteria for a country to be called Western or Eastern?
Is there a hard criteria at all?
Is there a hard criteria at all?
It would also be handy if the parent used the common English meaning when writing in English.
Sorry but English is spoken all over the world. When I speak of the president, I mean Rutte. If someone in India (English is an official language there) speaks of the president, I'm sure they mean someone else. If English were to be beholden only to USA-centric concepts, we're going to need a new universal language because that's going to be super annoying.
And even in "the west" (by which I would mean the top ~40 countries by HDI), "the west" is a poorly-defined term.
Edit: turns out Wikipedia has an article about "Western world", which makes it quite clear that the term is vague. Apparently the original meaning was "Western Christendom", so it's a religious thing. TIL.
And even in "the west" (by which I would mean the top ~40 countries by HDI), "the west" is a poorly-defined term.
Edit: turns out Wikipedia has an article about "Western world", which makes it quite clear that the term is vague. Apparently the original meaning was "Western Christendom", so it's a religious thing. TIL.
First, president isn't a common name, but you know very well that you'll confuse people if you use it in a context in which people don't assume the is Rutte. Look up Gricean maxims. They're not the be-and-end all of language, but they do explain a large part of how we communicate. And Rutte is a prime minister, of course, not a president. Mine too, alas.
> USA-centric concepts
It means the same in other languages. And English is, AFAIK, also spoken outside the USA. If I'd call anything to the east of the Poland "Mongolia" or "Eastern Asia", I think people wouldn't understand me or think I was being obtuse.
> USA-centric concepts
It means the same in other languages. And English is, AFAIK, also spoken outside the USA. If I'd call anything to the east of the Poland "Mongolia" or "Eastern Asia", I think people wouldn't understand me or think I was being obtuse.
The West / East divide is fundamentally a European concept, because it has existed there in one way or another for almost 2000 years. The West is associated with Germanic peoples / languages, Catholic / Protestant churches, West Roman Empire, capitalism during the Cold War, EU / NATO, and Europe. The East is associated with Slavic peoples / languages, Orthodox churches / Islam, East Roman Empire / Ottoman Empire, communism during the Cold War, Russia, and Asia. The more boxes you tick, the more strongly you are in that camp. Countries far away from Europe are only Western or Eastern by extrapolation.
(In a similar way, the Europe / Asia / Africa divide is fundamentally a Mediterranean concept. The farther away from the Mediterranean you go, the less sense it will make.)
(In a similar way, the Europe / Asia / Africa divide is fundamentally a Mediterranean concept. The farther away from the Mediterranean you go, the less sense it will make.)
The Ural mountains.
All this negativity is fueling the current or upcoming dump run, which in turn will fuel the next pump. Which eventually will expand crypto usage and make some rich cryptobros and sisters even richer.
Unless some actual systemic and global changes happen.
Unless some actual systemic and global changes happen.
[deleted]
Fantastic news!
Fantastic news would be getting rid of the coal subsidy not this meaningless theater
That would also be even better indeed, but much harder to achieve overnight. Reducing the use of coal power is also good, though.
Coal subsidies are good in poorer countries. Having cheap electricity is important for developing nations
Why? It's a waste of money and not economically efficient
Almost identical to bitcoin.
> while Kosovo has the cheapest energy prices in Europe due in part to more than 90% of the domestic energy production coming from burning the country’s rich reserves of lignite, a low-grade coal, and fuel bills being subsidised by the government.
> The largest-scale crypto mining is thought to be taking place in the north of the country, where the Serb-majority population refuse to recognise Kosovo as an independent state and have consequently not paid for electricity for more than two decades.
> global bitcoin mining consumes 125.96 terawatt hours a year of electricity, putting its consumption above Norway (122.2 TWh), Argentina (121 TWh), the Netherlands (108.8 TWh) and the United Arab Emirates (113.20 TWh).
The absurdity of the bitcoin mining in the middle of the climate crisis is mind boggling.
> The largest-scale crypto mining is thought to be taking place in the north of the country, where the Serb-majority population refuse to recognise Kosovo as an independent state and have consequently not paid for electricity for more than two decades.
> global bitcoin mining consumes 125.96 terawatt hours a year of electricity, putting its consumption above Norway (122.2 TWh), Argentina (121 TWh), the Netherlands (108.8 TWh) and the United Arab Emirates (113.20 TWh).
The absurdity of the bitcoin mining in the middle of the climate crisis is mind boggling.
Pricing electricity so low that bitcoin mining is profitable during peak hours is absurd.
We should tax the hell out of every ounce of carbon emitted and use money from this tax to pay basic income so that people are able to live with increased prices. Free market will sort the rest out
Energy is so cheap that some renewables could be decomissioned if not for bitcoin: https://www.reuters.com/technology/costa-rica-hydro-plant-ge...
We should tax the hell out of every ounce of carbon emitted and use money from this tax to pay basic income so that people are able to live with increased prices. Free market will sort the rest out
Energy is so cheap that some renewables could be decomissioned if not for bitcoin: https://www.reuters.com/technology/costa-rica-hydro-plant-ge...
It's an odd leap from electricity prices to carbon tax to basic income. And with free market as a cherry on top! There are better, more effective ideas that are effectively ignored rather than disrupting the economic and financial systems in place and letting "free market sort it out" as if it were ever possible in such a scenario.
For one such example, immediately ban or heavily tax the sale of massively polluting vehicles such as SUVs, that as a category pollute as much as UK and Netherlands combined [0], making road circulation safer in the process too, and riding the wave of EV getting more adoption. But this won't happen, since it's a successful industry with a strong lobby behind it. And as per usual, concrete is the major culprit of CO2 emissions. That's where one could look for opportunities (such as reprocessing plants where emissions are redirected) and stricter regulations. Don't increase prices like so many in Germany feel would be the right thing to do, it only impacts those who can't afford better housing (insulation, heating efficiency).
0. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/01/suv-conquere...
0. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/01/suv-conquere...
> It's an odd leap from electricity prices to carbon tax to basic income. . . Don't increase prices like so many in Germany feel would be the right thing to do, it only impacts those who can't afford better housing
The "odd leap" from carbon tax to basic income is exactly to address this issue of the cost to the less well-off. In a tremendously simpler, more effective, and freer way than detailed bans of particular uses of energy which also have successful industries with strong lobbies behind them.
The "odd leap" from carbon tax to basic income is exactly to address this issue of the cost to the less well-off. In a tremendously simpler, more effective, and freer way than detailed bans of particular uses of energy which also have successful industries with strong lobbies behind them.
I'm all in to ban SUV. But by doing that you're gonna threaten the masculinity and sense of identity of a large set of people. Intelligent politicians will use this to drift the debate into elite green progressists vs working class who just want a piece of the cake. To not get into this minefield lets not forget that corporations acount for a very large part of energy use and that perhaps useless transport of useless goods should be restricted, also restricting putting energy-intensive electronics in gadgets that don't need them.. There are tons of measures that can target corporations that will be easier to control, have more measurable and predictable outcomes and won't contribute to desintegrate the social cohesion and will stop the working class from getting eaten up by the far right.
It's not an odd leap at all. The core problem is that we don't pay for the externalities of fossil fuels. If we fix that, then the next question is what to do with the money, and a simple, efficient, and equitable answer is to return it to the population, equal amount per person. That's why carbon fee-and-dividend is a popular proposal with the support of a lot of economists.
why ban SUVs instead of raising the cost to operate them?
The article sayeth:
> ...as part of emergency measures to ease a crippling energy crisis.
They aren't identifying "electricity is too cheap" as the problem. And it doesn't sound like the climate crisis is on their radar right now.
> ...as part of emergency measures to ease a crippling energy crisis.
They aren't identifying "electricity is too cheap" as the problem. And it doesn't sound like the climate crisis is on their radar right now.
Increasing the energy prices isn’t a solution. It’d affect to poor disproportionally, while also being greatly destabilizing for society at large. It’s basically a flat tax for heating your home.
Norway recently experienced its highest energy prices ever, in large part because of tighter coupling with the European market. Some people got bills 10x of previous years. Using less energy simply isn’t an option here, otherwise you freeze to death, or damage your home. It led to a massive political outcry that was easily exploitable by populists.
You can’t go back on decades of energy policy in that short a time frame, and you can’t do it without easing the tax burden somewhere else. The current government in Norway is polling extremely low. So low they probably won’t recover by the next election in 3 years. And they didn’t even cause the spike in energy prices here. I dread to imagine what would happen if a government intentionally hiked the enrgy prices just to stop bitcoin miners…
Norway recently experienced its highest energy prices ever, in large part because of tighter coupling with the European market. Some people got bills 10x of previous years. Using less energy simply isn’t an option here, otherwise you freeze to death, or damage your home. It led to a massive political outcry that was easily exploitable by populists.
You can’t go back on decades of energy policy in that short a time frame, and you can’t do it without easing the tax burden somewhere else. The current government in Norway is polling extremely low. So low they probably won’t recover by the next election in 3 years. And they didn’t even cause the spike in energy prices here. I dread to imagine what would happen if a government intentionally hiked the enrgy prices just to stop bitcoin miners…
That's why poor (and for simplicity everybody) should be subsidized to counteract the effect of taxing carbon.
Then this tax will only influence economy making ways of doing things that don't emit carbon insanely competitive.
Then this tax will only influence economy making ways of doing things that don't emit carbon insanely competitive.
[deleted]
> Pricing electricity so low that bitcoin mining is profitable during peak hours is absurd.
Electricity is not just a discretionary commodity, it serves an essential need enabling our modern society. It makes no sense to increase electricity prices and hike up inflation for the common person in an effort to dissuade crypto miners. If we really wanted to go that way, a better solution IMO is to introduce two electricity rates, one for things that perform useful services (by broad positive impact to society) and one other for PoW crypto mining.
Electricity is not just a discretionary commodity, it serves an essential need enabling our modern society. It makes no sense to increase electricity prices and hike up inflation for the common person in an effort to dissuade crypto miners. If we really wanted to go that way, a better solution IMO is to introduce two electricity rates, one for things that perform useful services (by broad positive impact to society) and one other for PoW crypto mining.
It's not to dissuade bitcoin mining. It's to move us away from emitting carbon as fast as possible. Crypto is just sideshow.
Carbon emission are not priced according to their future impact. We need to price it correctly. And it's better to overcorrect rhan undercorrect. The only downside is that this pricing will propagate into the economy (as it should). When it reaches people that can no longer afford to live we can prevent them from dying by giving them money we got from tax.
Carbon emission are not priced according to their future impact. We need to price it correctly. And it's better to overcorrect rhan undercorrect. The only downside is that this pricing will propagate into the economy (as it should). When it reaches people that can no longer afford to live we can prevent them from dying by giving them money we got from tax.
>>> We should tax the hell out of every ounce of carbon emitted and use money from this tax to pay basic income so that people are able to live with increased prices. Free market will sort the rest out
Sarcasm?
Sarcasm?
You give everyone equal amounts of co2 tokens. CO2 pollution costs tokens. You have now democratized CO2 pollution. Every single person gets to decide how much pollution they want in the world. Replace pollution tokens with dollars and taxes and you have the same democratic system.
I don't see why you think this is sarcasm. Sounds very reasonable to me.
I also don’t think it is sarcasm, but I don’t think it is reasonable.
> We should tax the hell out of every ounce of carbon emitted and use money from this tax to pay basic income so that people are able to live with increased prices.
So far so good.
> Free market will sort the rest out
Under free market, the basic income will cause a further price increase, rendering the effort moot.
Subsidizing energy, as Kosovo and Kazakhstan have been doing (resulting in the same consequences on coin mining and crackdown), is necessary, and thus so are the consequences.
> We should tax the hell out of every ounce of carbon emitted and use money from this tax to pay basic income so that people are able to live with increased prices.
So far so good.
> Free market will sort the rest out
Under free market, the basic income will cause a further price increase, rendering the effort moot.
Subsidizing energy, as Kosovo and Kazakhstan have been doing (resulting in the same consequences on coin mining and crackdown), is necessary, and thus so are the consequences.
No it doesn’t. Example, imagine you currently have a energy bill of $1000p.a. With the proposal above, we’ll move you to a $3000p.a. bill with CO2 taxes. And, we’ll give you $2000p.a. to compensate for the increased energy bill.
Would you really just keep paying more for energy because you have that? The payback period on solar panels just went *0.3, batteries just became a affordable option for day/night balancing, many alternative investments in renewable energy just became profitable.
Many people will use that opportunity to get ahead financially. I think that’s what GP meant with “the free market will sort out the rest”
Would you really just keep paying more for energy because you have that? The payback period on solar panels just went *0.3, batteries just became a affordable option for day/night balancing, many alternative investments in renewable energy just became profitable.
Many people will use that opportunity to get ahead financially. I think that’s what GP meant with “the free market will sort out the rest”
I’m not exactly sure we are disagreeing.
> we’ll give you $2000p.a. to compensate for the increased energy bill. Would you really just keep paying more for energy because you have that?
In the suggested policy I was replying to, the $2k would decrease if I (and many others) switched to renewable. That loss would muddy the gains, discouraging the switch. Besides, the methods you are describing tend to have high upfront costs.
Hence, the need for subsidizing instead, something very close, but without a negative-feedback-loop incentive.
To be fair, while that is a reasonable policy (and why so many countries enact it), I would favor requiring each company to be individually carbon-neutral, with an exponential penalty. As a result, it is not a tax which could weaken the vulnerable, and yet it forces companies to choose between reducing their negative externalities, and bankruptcy.
But computing carbon-neutrality is hard.
> we’ll give you $2000p.a. to compensate for the increased energy bill. Would you really just keep paying more for energy because you have that?
In the suggested policy I was replying to, the $2k would decrease if I (and many others) switched to renewable. That loss would muddy the gains, discouraging the switch. Besides, the methods you are describing tend to have high upfront costs.
Hence, the need for subsidizing instead, something very close, but without a negative-feedback-loop incentive.
To be fair, while that is a reasonable policy (and why so many countries enact it), I would favor requiring each company to be individually carbon-neutral, with an exponential penalty. As a result, it is not a tax which could weaken the vulnerable, and yet it forces companies to choose between reducing their negative externalities, and bankruptcy.
But computing carbon-neutrality is hard.
Maybe not that far apart. The challenge with subsidies is the administration and making sure you exhaustively subsidize different options. It’s also infeasible for smaller investments such as radiator foil.
My underlying assumption is that you would reduce the 2k compensation in my example. So the incentive for any saving remains.
On duration: I installed solar for 0.80€ (ex vat) per Wp (which generates about 1kWh p.a.). In NL electricity rates recently spiked to 0.45 euro per kWh. Based on that, payback time is now less than 2 years (that includes everything, panels, inverter and installation, etc.)
but I think we agree the challenge is to find a way to create a good market incentive for consumers and industry to reduce their externalities/CO2.
My underlying assumption is that you would reduce the 2k compensation in my example. So the incentive for any saving remains.
On duration: I installed solar for 0.80€ (ex vat) per Wp (which generates about 1kWh p.a.). In NL electricity rates recently spiked to 0.45 euro per kWh. Based on that, payback time is now less than 2 years (that includes everything, panels, inverter and installation, etc.)
but I think we agree the challenge is to find a way to create a good market incentive for consumers and industry to reduce their externalities/CO2.
Well it is either sarcasm or ignorance to say that Taxes, UBI and a Free Market could ever exist in the same economy or be part any economic device.
I'm thinking probably ignorance as the comment also thinks that raising the costs of energy used to produce BTC will somehow make it less profitable to mine when in fact it will simply increase commodity value and most likely drive more interest and increase speculation thus consuming more energy.
I'm thinking probably ignorance as the comment also thinks that raising the costs of energy used to produce BTC will somehow make it less profitable to mine when in fact it will simply increase commodity value and most likely drive more interest and increase speculation thus consuming more energy.
How will taxes improve the environment? They will give politicians more power to oppress, snd since governments are the largest polluters in the world the environment will get worse.
Which they will use as an excuse for more taxes.
See the pattern?
——
This comment has two further comments, both of which ask questions. But since this comment is heavily downvoted, I cannot reply to the replies to answer the questions.
In short: no such thing as “negative externalities”, thats just make-believe to whitewash oppression and poverty creation. Taxes are not a market signal by definition. Its interesting how blithely people accept using violence to force others to comply with their wishes.
If you really wanted to reduce CO2 you would support safe clean nuclear. But CO2 isnt causing warming- its historically low, earth started at %100 CO2. Plants evolved to need levels 5 times higher than present. Increased CO2 would improve the environment. We had an ICE AGE at 10 times higher CO2 then now. ETC.
Unfortunately Government propaganda has replace science education.
Which they will use as an excuse for more taxes.
See the pattern?
——
This comment has two further comments, both of which ask questions. But since this comment is heavily downvoted, I cannot reply to the replies to answer the questions.
In short: no such thing as “negative externalities”, thats just make-believe to whitewash oppression and poverty creation. Taxes are not a market signal by definition. Its interesting how blithely people accept using violence to force others to comply with their wishes.
If you really wanted to reduce CO2 you would support safe clean nuclear. But CO2 isnt causing warming- its historically low, earth started at %100 CO2. Plants evolved to need levels 5 times higher than present. Increased CO2 would improve the environment. We had an ICE AGE at 10 times higher CO2 then now. ETC.
Unfortunately Government propaganda has replace science education.
Taxes infom the market about externalities.
Taxing carbon emission significantly sends price signal to every actor in the market that uses products and services that have carbon emission upstream to maybe reduce usage of such products and services or switch to another.
Taxing carbon emission significantly sends price signal to every actor in the market that uses products and services that have carbon emission upstream to maybe reduce usage of such products and services or switch to another.
Governments have a role in taxing negative externalities. What alternative do libertarians like you have? Forgetting whether or not you believe in climate change, if it does indeed exist as a possibility, what would libertarians like you do about it?
Your comment is blatant virtue signalling -- it's taking a moral high ground without providing any alternatives.
[edit] At least you've provided an alternative now: nuclear energy. Then again, you only did it when pushed to.
Your comment is blatant virtue signalling -- it's taking a moral high ground without providing any alternatives.
[edit] At least you've provided an alternative now: nuclear energy. Then again, you only did it when pushed to.
It's not a free market if we tax it to distort it.
> It's not a free market if we tax it to distort it.
Arguable false.
The freest markets price in all externalities so that the user pays the whole costs and doesn't outsource the externalities to others.
Taxing is one way to help pass on these externalities.
Arguably this makes it a more free market as taxes help make people pay closer to their actual costs and takes part of the burden off those who don't
Arguable false.
The freest markets price in all externalities so that the user pays the whole costs and doesn't outsource the externalities to others.
Taxing is one way to help pass on these externalities.
Arguably this makes it a more free market as taxes help make people pay closer to their actual costs and takes part of the burden off those who don't
It’s not a free market if some costs are externalized to society instead of priced in. Like pollution.
There is absolutely no way to set a fair price for something like that. We have no way of knowing the cost, if there is any at all.
Sure there is. The cost of emitting a ton of carbon should ideally be the cost of capturing a ton of carbon. Managed in a free market kind of way.
Same way you pay i.e. for electricity.
If you can get somebody to capture it for 1$, well, good for you. If there are only buyers for -10000$, then that's your problem.
We're not there yet as far as carbon capture goes, but I do think we'll get there.
Same way you pay i.e. for electricity.
If you can get somebody to capture it for 1$, well, good for you. If there are only buyers for -10000$, then that's your problem.
We're not there yet as far as carbon capture goes, but I do think we'll get there.
Which is exactly what I said. We don't know how much it will cost to capture that carbon, so we can't set a price, so it's unfair to set any price.
What if we figure out something good to do with that carbon, and capturing it becomes profitable? Should we return all that money to those it was stolen from?
What if we figure out something good to do with that carbon, and capturing it becomes profitable? Should we return all that money to those it was stolen from?
Currently we deem it not desirable, so it's alright to me if we price it very high, thus stimulating investment in this area to bring the cost down or even make it profitable.
> What if we figure out something good to do with that carbon, and capturing it becomes profitable? Should we return all that money to those it was stolen from?
Well consider this. We have these things called taxes. Everyone pays them.
Sometimes we change the tax rate.
Once we change the tax rate we don't go back years and give people refunds for the new rates.
Nor do we retroactively go back and charge people more if we raise their tax rates.
Carbon taxes would, perhaps not surprisingly, work the same. At the moment we consider adding carbon to the environment to be a negative event and well tax is as such.
If at some point in the future we decide we really want more carbon in the atmosphere then we can incentivize people to do that, but we generally don't go back and retroactively give people refunds for their old taxes:)
Well consider this. We have these things called taxes. Everyone pays them.
Sometimes we change the tax rate.
Once we change the tax rate we don't go back years and give people refunds for the new rates.
Nor do we retroactively go back and charge people more if we raise their tax rates.
Carbon taxes would, perhaps not surprisingly, work the same. At the moment we consider adding carbon to the environment to be a negative event and well tax is as such.
If at some point in the future we decide we really want more carbon in the atmosphere then we can incentivize people to do that, but we generally don't go back and retroactively give people refunds for their old taxes:)
We know the price with current methods though. It is prohibitively expensive, so no one will agree with it.
And for the second question: no. Why would we? You pay for the pollution you emit. If a company agree to provide you the means for free, or even pay you to emit this pollution, all the power to you. What happen in the present should have no impact on current taxes.
And for the second question: no. Why would we? You pay for the pollution you emit. If a company agree to provide you the means for free, or even pay you to emit this pollution, all the power to you. What happen in the present should have no impact on current taxes.
By pricing in the externalities you turn it into a market. Before that, it was free riding (rent seeking).
> The largest-scale crypto mining is thought to be taking place in the north of the country, where the Serb-majority population refuse to recognise Kosovo as an independent state and have consequently not paid for electricity for more than two decades.
I still find this wording very interesting, and somewhat loaded. It's not that the population is somehow collectively refusing to pay for their electricity. A mechanism for them to pay it has not existed since 1999.
Discussed previously here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29809078
I still find this wording very interesting, and somewhat loaded. It's not that the population is somehow collectively refusing to pay for their electricity. A mechanism for them to pay it has not existed since 1999.
Discussed previously here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29809078
I read the discussion and the piece referenced therein, but I couldn't find a reference to the Serbs not being able to pay. Can you elaborate on this?
My understanding is that the billing infrastructure for that part of Kosovo still hasn't been established. Quoting another article from balkaninsight [0]:
> While the Kosovo government remains unclear on how to proceed after the six-month deadline, Serbs in the Kosovo north remain confused on how and to whom they should pay their electricity bills.
> Miodrag Milicevic, of the North Mitrovica-based NGO Aktiv, says Serbs in the north of Kosovo are in a “grey zone” when it comes to their electricity bills.
> “Some still favour of maintaining this status, partly because they do not know who to pay, no one has complete information about it, about the method of calculating electricity, or who will be responsible for payment,” Milicevic told BIRN.
[0]: https://balkaninsight.com/2021/05/06/kosovo-pledges-to-solve...
> While the Kosovo government remains unclear on how to proceed after the six-month deadline, Serbs in the Kosovo north remain confused on how and to whom they should pay their electricity bills.
> Miodrag Milicevic, of the North Mitrovica-based NGO Aktiv, says Serbs in the north of Kosovo are in a “grey zone” when it comes to their electricity bills.
> “Some still favour of maintaining this status, partly because they do not know who to pay, no one has complete information about it, about the method of calculating electricity, or who will be responsible for payment,” Milicevic told BIRN.
[0]: https://balkaninsight.com/2021/05/06/kosovo-pledges-to-solve...
The irony of eating meat/driving gas guzzling cars/using air conditioning/flying/…
Do we need to attach the climate crisis to everything these days? It’s very important but picking on one thing relentlessly and not others is just silly. We’re not going to solve the climate crisis by trying to stop people from doing things that use a lot of energy. We need to find ways to make those things sustainable/carbon neutral.
Do we need to attach the climate crisis to everything these days? It’s very important but picking on one thing relentlessly and not others is just silly. We’re not going to solve the climate crisis by trying to stop people from doing things that use a lot of energy. We need to find ways to make those things sustainable/carbon neutral.
We’re talking about Bitcoin here because the news is about Bitcoin, it doesn’t mean we don’t care about reducing emissions in other areas. There are articles on HN regularly about EVs, synthetic meat, etc.
One thing that sets POW apart, though, is how it is designed to resist efficiency improvements through the difficulty adjustment mechanism. When hashrate per watt goes up with efficiency improvements, the network difficulty goes up to compensate, so more efficient hardware does not improve the efficiency of the system.
One thing that sets POW apart, though, is how it is designed to resist efficiency improvements through the difficulty adjustment mechanism. When hashrate per watt goes up with efficiency improvements, the network difficulty goes up to compensate, so more efficient hardware does not improve the efficiency of the system.
Such a boorish attitude that Bors made a specific version of Mister Gotcha just for you:
https://twitter.com/thenib/status/1098281126743937031
If you think the comic is hyperbole, I've literally had people say "but you exhale CO2, AHA!" to me when I've suggested we need more people on bicycles for personal transportation.
The fact that bicycles are the most energy-efficient form of personal transit? Irrelevant, apparently, because we exhale CO2.
https://twitter.com/thenib/status/1098281126743937031
If you think the comic is hyperbole, I've literally had people say "but you exhale CO2, AHA!" to me when I've suggested we need more people on bicycles for personal transportation.
The fact that bicycles are the most energy-efficient form of personal transit? Irrelevant, apparently, because we exhale CO2.
The climate crisis will solve itself when flying, eating meat, gas guzzling cars, etc. are impossible to use because the climate crisis has made life an (as of today) essentially unimaginable hellscape. Sure it’ll be a few centuries of abject misery but as a result the world’s population will contract a lot and things will “reset.”
If people today aren’t willing to change their lives (and they clearly aren’t), then it’s time to enjoy the ride and hope we die (fingers crossed) before things get awful (which they will).
If people today aren’t willing to change their lives (and they clearly aren’t), then it’s time to enjoy the ride and hope we die (fingers crossed) before things get awful (which they will).
Hey, air conditioning doesn't belong on that list. It uses a lot of energy but it also significantly improves quality of life in hot and humid regions of the planet. And unlike the other items on your list, there's no ethical or intrinsically pollutive aspect to it. Also lots of developments in newer more energy efficient compressors and DC ACs with smarter control algorithms meant to run with solar.
From a purely practical political point of view, none of those things can be banned outright without an _enormous_ political backlash, so the approach has to be slow improvement and phaseout. Crypto-mining, on the other hand, could be banned tomorrow, with virtually no political fallout.
[deleted]
The other two quotes you’ve posted suggest that mining is a significantly smaller issue in this particular scenario. The principal culprits for climate change instead seem to be government-sponsored majority-coal energy expenditure and irredentist nationalist policies.
I sometimes wonder if Satoshi, whoever they are, is incredibly guilt-ridden by this. I know I would be.
Not that I blame them at all, there was no way to predict the scale of the damage that a single paper could have on the world, and someone else would have eventually come up with the same idea.
Not that I blame them at all, there was no way to predict the scale of the damage that a single paper could have on the world, and someone else would have eventually come up with the same idea.
[deleted]
Hal Finney (who beta-tested bitcoin before its release) flagged it almost immediately:
> @halfin
> Thinking about how to reduce CO2 emissions from a widespread Bitcoin implementation
> Jan 27, 2009
https://twitter.com/halfin/status/1153096538
Bitcoiners cannot claim they weren't told early, by bitcoin's second developer.
> @halfin
> Thinking about how to reduce CO2 emissions from a widespread Bitcoin implementation
> Jan 27, 2009
https://twitter.com/halfin/status/1153096538
Bitcoiners cannot claim they weren't told early, by bitcoin's second developer.
No because he wanted to take revenge on the "banks" after the 2008 crisis. He must be incredibly proud of the gigantic pyramid he built, knowing if he move just one btc out of his wallet he'll cause so much ruin people will suicide.
Satoshi has been selling bitcoin to pay expenses every year. You just don’t know it because “Satoshi’s coins” is a myth. He wrote off the identifiable ones but still had years to mine cheaply.
Bitcoin is not ab attack in banks but on inflation.
It is undermining government ability to create poverty and oppress people.
Bitcoin is not ab attack in banks but on inflation.
It is undermining government ability to create poverty and oppress people.
I heard that the person who invented single serve coffee pods felt a similar guilt when they witnessed the amount of trash created from such a popular invention.
Both of these sentiments probably deserve the good old "Woody Harrelson drying tears with 100 dollar bills" meme.
[deleted]
I will also cast judgement back in time, to all families owning cars both fossil and electric, to all the people not recycling every ounce of garbage they've thrown. The people whom consumed even the slightest, I cast my judgement, they've doomed the world with their existence. The judgment I cast even lands upon you, hackernews commenter, when it's all laid out.
cyphertruck(4)
I like putting it another way: 125.96 terawatt-hours at 11 cents per Kwh (my local rate which is quite a bit higher than many places mining happens) is about $13.8 billion. This is much less than what the world spent on toothpaste in a year ($30bn), isn't much more than Americans spent on Halloween ($10bn), cigarette companies spent on US marketing ($8bn, with much more than that being how much American spent on cigarettes), and is only about 10x more than a single banking player (Bank of America) spends on cybersecurity per year. Do any of these figures seem as absurd to you?
BTC bad.
Giant faceless banks in bed with the government good.
You dind't get the memo when you signed up?
Giant faceless banks in bed with the government good.
You dind't get the memo when you signed up?
So are giant TVs, PC gaming rigs, ACs, large cars, overconsumption of meat, etc. None can be justified given climate change, but everyone wants to keep it.
The truth is that nobody cares about energy usage. It has exploded in the last decades whilst fully knowing about the problem. People only care about somebody else's energy usage and call for the banning of things they don't use or care about.
The truth is that nobody cares about energy usage. It has exploded in the last decades whilst fully knowing about the problem. People only care about somebody else's energy usage and call for the banning of things they don't use or care about.
> nobody cares about energy usage. It has exploded in the last decades
That's not quite right. In the West, energy usage per capita has risen until the 1970's or 80's, then stayed flat or fallen. (Of course, it's continued to rise in Asia, but fairly linearly; I wouldn't call it an explosion.)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab...
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumpti...
That's not quite right. In the West, energy usage per capita has risen until the 1970's or 80's, then stayed flat or fallen. (Of course, it's continued to rise in Asia, but fairly linearly; I wouldn't call it an explosion.)
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab...
https://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumpti...
I was thinking of bringing up the same point, but one could argue that it's for own gain to pay less on the energy bill.
It can be said much more broadly that people are changing behavior. Not everyone for sure, but there are few people left that will not claim to be making different personal choices for environmental reasons. I think a lot of them are worth very little and there are definitely hypocrites that take multiple flights per year and compensate that by plugging out phone chargers while not in use, but it's still something that's apparently on their mind. People do do things, and some people do significant things. If GP says that they only see people complaining about others without doing anything themselves, that must be a quite narrow bubble (from my point of view, at least).
Edit: maybe a less debatable example is meat replacement products in supermarkets popping up. It's not as if we have more compassion with animals today than ten years ago, what changed is that more people are aware of the climate impact of meat. If nobody was willing to do anything, who's financing the production and buys the shelf space? The products don't even hold that long before spoiling, so they must be sold nearly as fast as meat.
It can be said much more broadly that people are changing behavior. Not everyone for sure, but there are few people left that will not claim to be making different personal choices for environmental reasons. I think a lot of them are worth very little and there are definitely hypocrites that take multiple flights per year and compensate that by plugging out phone chargers while not in use, but it's still something that's apparently on their mind. People do do things, and some people do significant things. If GP says that they only see people complaining about others without doing anything themselves, that must be a quite narrow bubble (from my point of view, at least).
Edit: maybe a less debatable example is meat replacement products in supermarkets popping up. It's not as if we have more compassion with animals today than ten years ago, what changed is that more people are aware of the climate impact of meat. If nobody was willing to do anything, who's financing the production and buys the shelf space? The products don't even hold that long before spoiling, so they must be sold nearly as fast as meat.
> People only care about somebody else's energy usage and call for the banning of things they don't use or care about.
That's your bubble, not mine. This is not my experience at all.
That's your bubble, not mine. This is not my experience at all.
Both subsidizing dirty coal and using it to mine bitcoin both sound criminal to me. Subsidizing coal is the most evil while mining bitcoin with it is a meaningless act that's fun to dislike
It's a poor country, they have lots of dirty coal. Their options are use it and have pollution, or pay money to import energy/electricity or build new nuclear power plants ( seems out of the question) or invest into renewables. Coal seems the cheapest option, especially for a country with complicated relations with many of their neighbours, which would make energy/electricity imports highly risky.
I think you replied to the wrong comment. Mind was about a poor country wasting govt money on populist subsidies
It's possible to use coal for power without subsidies (coal is cheap) and bonus it's even more economically efficient
It's possible to use coal for power without subsidies (coal is cheap) and bonus it's even more economically efficient
Climate crisis aside, the absurdity of bitcoin mining parasitically profiting out of a local geopolitical situation like this is very ...illustrative.
Maybe if countries stopped giving away free energy people would waste less...
The poor population of those countries needs that cheap energy to not freeze to death and in general for everyday living.
So ration is accordingly. Just telling everyone they can have enough energy to run a Bitcoin mining op, and then being surprised when they run a Bitcoin mining op seems silly...
So, if everyone was mining Bitcoin, they would earn around US$0.15 per month (assuming 8e9 people, a 6.25 BTC coinbase mining reward every 10 minutes plus some 10% transaction fees, at a price of US$40,000/BTC, and zero energy/mining rig cost). Yay, Bitcoin is solving global poverty!
[deleted](1)
Well, risk evaluation is part of founding a company. Sucks to be them but there is no need to keep having rolling blackouts just because some people didn't do their research.