[mindcandy]

I'll take a position on this:

> Are you really going to claim that there isn't a demand for green energy already?

Is a disingenuous argument. Of course there is already demand for green energy. Meanwhile, Bitcoin increases the demand so much that people are apparently outraged by the increase.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Of course there is already demand for green energy. Meanwhile, Bitcoin increases the demand so much that people are apparently outraged by the increase

Assuming that you think you're serious: Increasing the demand for energy (and it's not "demand for green energy" it's demand for energy, period) is not, has not been and never will be a green strategy in itself.

This is easy to understand, unless you choose not to.

https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2020/06/03/guest-post-t...

[mindcandy]

My understanding of the situation is:

1. Wind/solar energy are being trumpeted around the world as the cheapest source of electricity available. 2. Bitcoin miners' profits are directly `sale price of BTC - buy price of electricity`. Other costs are marginal in comparison. 3. BTC mining is a extremely competitive, trivially mobile, trivially liquid, global market. 4. Given 1, 2 & 3 there is a lot of fretting that BTC is creating a coal-powered financial system.

With the recent spike, the currently reasonable cost for a fast, median-sized transaction is $10.46 [1] [2] According to the fretting articles I read, that is enough to power an average home for a 23 days and motivates sending over 300kg (700lb) of C02 into the air [3] That's 35 gallons of gasoline at 20lb CO2/gallon.

:/

For what it's worth, I get the concern. But, I also see equal shares of BTC hate|BTC fanboyism everywhere I go. Latching on to the environmental concerns of BTC is trendy right now. It's hard to argue against without sounding like an asshole and it's not entirely false. But, it's not entirely honest either. Everything I read and calculate shows that BTC makes total sense as a defacto green energy subsidy. But, that does not spark outrage. So, instead there is a lot of fretting about the second rise of a coal-powered economy.

IMHO, the way Ethereum is going is great: Bootstrap with POW then switch to POS after enough investment is built-up that staking actually means something. It's arguable that the best use of BTC at this point is to burn them all to bootstrap more POS tokens. We just need alternatives that inspire enough confidence to motivate people to convert their BTC over.

[1] https://awebanalysis.com/en/convert-satoshi-to-dollar-usd/ [2] https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/ [3] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Everything I read and calculate shows that BTC makes total sense as a defacto green energy subsidy.

Then you must be reading in a bubble, as this is nonsense. Self-justifying fantasising.

Throwing energy away (which from an outside POV, this is merely an example of) is not and never has been a green energy strategy. I mean that very literally: the green people are very keen on electricity demand reduction, always have been, and are not going to change this. Because they're not wrong.

Key terms to google: Energy conservation, Energy Efficiency, energy demand reduction, Negawatt

[mindcandy]

Crazy, I know. But, these are not contradictory strategies.

You can have everyone work hard to reduce their energy usage. You can have tax-funded subsidies to motivate green supply increase despite targeting reduced demand. And, that's all lovely and great.

At the same time, you can have a voracious, highly mobile demand for the cheapest energy around. You know, the kind that solar and wind is supplying, but sometimes in mildly inconvenient locations. This does not actually reduce the supply for everyone else. It's not a zero-sum game. Supply follows demand. This horrendous cadre of buyers directly pay for increased production of cheap green energy that otherwise would not have been set up at all. Thus, ramping up equipment production and economy of scale. And, motivating the creation of supply that otherwise would have been too risky to invest in.