[throwaway7281]

I can see that mining is a good incentive to look for excess energy in all kinds of places and make use of it. That's a capitalistic motiv, finding solutions to derived issues, when something else is at the core of the problem. But anyway.

B$ still looks ridiculous, let me explain.

* world electrical energy consumption: ~25000 TWh [1] * bitcoin energy consumption index: ~77 TWh [2]

Bitcoin today consumes as much as 0.3% of the total energy available on this planet.

That's fine, if half the world would use it and would do meaningful things with it.

What is it actually used for most visibly?

As a betting ground with galactic momentum, a technology promising to be the solution to everything, and just outrageous claims that only the bovine left to be excited about.

It's not that the algorithms and data structures are not cool, the certainly are - but we can do so much more today with technology than this.

[1] https://www.vgb.org/en/data_powergeneration.html?dfid=98054 [2] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

[vmception]

And that's a different issue, you are conflating your energy use criticism with an arbitrary meaningful use criticism. Others may be willing to have that argument with you, but I know how those go: Someone says something about another industry's use, you say something about slow databases, they say something about another use case, you say something about why bitcoin/blockchains are not the best solution for that use case, rinse repeat.

The amount of energy without detailing the source of energy is not a valid argument to support any argument you have about why it is being used. Move off of it, or criticize the sources in a more nuanced educated argument. It should be 100% renewable or part of a sustainable solution, not only will you get further in your argument by focusing on the market participants that actually are wasting industry, you will also be helping!

[pmiller2]

The fact that it is primarily renewable is actually the reason why BTC's energy costs are exorbitant. That energy could be directed toward replacing fossil fuels, thus reducing carbon emissions.

Is that "educated" enough for you?

[vmception]

Can you elaborate? What do you think is happening at say, a hydroelectric damn with onsite computers, versus what could happen?

[pmiller2]

You see, we have these things called power lines, and, along with the substations, transformers, and other transmission equipment, those make up power grids. We have 3 of them in the US alone.

Now, when electricity is generated, you can transmit it over those power grids, even to places that aren't right next to the dam. You can even store a limited amount for later use.

Ever kWh that gets redirected away from frivolities like BTC can go toward something that would otherwise be powered by fossil fuels.

I thought you were "educated" here? Please do keep up.

[vmception]

The energy loss from power plant to consumer is 8-15%, on premise cryptocurrency mining is using

A) from some sources: Energy that wasn't going to be sent over those power lines

B) from other sources: a hedge against the loss

C) in some sources a combination of both A and B

If you get around to noticing, I have refrained from any snark with you and I wonder how long you will keep that up

[pmiller2]

Au contraire, I appreciate your "educated" opinion here. I just want to make sure I'm sufficiently "educated," so I can believe the exact same thing you do, with a straight face. If you didn't want it that way, you shouldn't have led with it.

Regarding A), there's no particular reason why that electricity can't be sent across power lines.

B) So what? Send it anyway, and replace 85-92% of the energy use.