[flopunctro]

In the grand scheme, the "tons" (or rather, gigajoules) of energy wasted by the Proof-of-Work are nothing. The Sun radiation that hits Earth every second dwarfs this consumption.

Also, one of the definitions of life is "a local decrease in entropy, at the cost of a global, larger, increase in entropy". By this criteria, every living being is a bad thing for the universe, because it accelerates the global heat death ever so slightly.

I guess my point is, some uses of energy are acceptable, even desirable. And every use of energy accelerates the heat death of the universe, but we humans are insignificant on this scale; there is really nothing that we can do to even accelerate our Sun's death. We're not even Kardashev-1 :)

[vruiz]

I was going to point that the universe is not relevant here, only humans, the energy we produce and how we produce it matters. But then I realized that either your comment must be tongue in cheek or you are trying to hard to rationalize this than there is no point on try to convince you.

[flopunctro]

Okay, I admit my comment was a bit rushed, and I apologize for that. It's not tongue-in-cheek, and I don't feel that I'm rationalizing things (but then, I guess I wouldn't feel it even if I were).

I was trying to view things in a bigger picture. Ofcourse we are using too much fossil fuels at this time. Ofcourse our functioning is pretty unsustainable.

What I am trying to say, is that sometimes high energy usage is acceptable. Should we stop launching things in orbit? Should we stop the LHC?

I think that for _some_ people, having a thing such as bitcoin is worth the energy expenditure. It is perfectly okay that for you, it _isn't_ acceptable. I am not trying to convince you of anything. Just affirming that there exists a subset of humans that find value in it, and therefore are willing to allocate resources -- be that electrical energy, fiat money, or mindshare.

[danans]

> Also, one of the definitions of life is "a local decrease in entropy, at the cost of a global, larger, increase in entropy". By this criteria, every living being is a bad thing for the universe, because it accelerates the global heat death ever so slightly.

The discussion about energy use of Bitcoin is within the context of the effectively closed system of Earth.

Until such a time that solar generated electricity is too plentiful to meter and ubiquitous, Bitcoin mining will cause huge demand for fossil fuel based energy, with the associated consequences for climate change.

[flopunctro]

> effectively closed system of Earth.

All the plants, algae, and everything with chlorophyll would beg to differ. I really think we cannot consider Earth a closed system, because we're not a rogue planet in the insterstellar void.

Our solar _system_ would be a better approximation of a "closed system".

[danans]

Solar radiation is the only significant exogenous input to the otherwise closed system of earth, and I directly addressed it in the context of solar electricity production needing to grow by a huge amount to offset the carbon footprint of BTC mining.

> Our solar _system_ would be a better approximation of a "closed system".

That's both pedantic and irrelevant. The rest of the solar system (other than the Sun) have practically zero bearing in any way on the energy consumption of BTC mining, or the damage to the climate it causes when powered by fossil fuels.

[imtringued]

>In the grand scheme, the "tons" (or rather, gigajoules) of energy wasted by the Proof-of-Work are nothing.

>but we humans are insignificant on this scale; there is really nothing that we can do to even accelerate our Sun's death. We're not even Kardashev-1 :)

I am shocked that you are brave enough to write these things in the same comment. The problem with Bitcoin and proof of work is that it's literally capable of consuming our sun and all energy in the universe.

[rspeele]

Is that you, Gary Johnson?

[flopunctro]

No idea who's Gary Johnson. I'm just a guy from Eastern Europe, watching too much Isaac Arthur.

[rspeele]

Just a playful joke. He's a US politician who ran for president in 2016 as a third-party (i.e. no chance of victory) candidate.

At one point he was asked about his long term view on global warming, and he said "In billions of years, the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future."

[flopunctro]

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining :)

Gary's response was obviously tongue-in-cheek, even somewhat flippant. My comment wasn't trying to be ironic, though I now see that it could be interpreted so.