Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rogueSkib 1826 days ago
Re: "ecological disaster"

I believe this is misinformation, because it assumes that the energy usage is not being well spent - that Bitcoin is a waste - but that assumption could not be further from the truth.

Bitcoin's value lies in its absolute scarcity and immutable monetary policy - it preserves your time spent working in a money that cannot be debased by anyone, ever. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoin.

If your savings is constantly at risk of being debased, not only do you lose purchasing power over time, but you're also incentivized to spend it and invest it as quickly as possible, rather than waiting thoughtfully for the best purchase or investment. You're being forced to have an extra job, as an investor, to even remotely come close to making a good investment. This is assuming that's even an option and that you have access to financial institutions in your country.

Technology is advancing exponentially - it should bring abundance and higher quality of life to everyone in the world. People will get more for less money, i.e. it is exponentially deflationary. With an inflationary monetary policy, where markets and assets prices are supported by the printing of money and will immediately crash if the printing stops, many nations will be forced to print exponentially to fight the deflation caused by technology. In other words, technology should be saving everyone time and energy as it raises productivity, but inflation forces everyone to work harder to keep up.

How can a finite planet support an economic system that demands infinite growth? A money with absolute scarcity solves this by allowing for deflation in prices as technology drives abundance. Fiat and inflationary monetary policy is the root problem driving climate change, and likely many other complex negative externalities.

In addition, I would point out that energy usage is not intrinsically bad. Higher per capita energy usage leads to higher quality of life. The climate issue energy poses is within how the energy is produced, and the majority of that problem lies in the emissions from coal power.

The good news on the energy production side is that a monetary network using Proof-of-Work incentivizes competition between miners globally. As cheaper (or even free, stranded) energy is made available to miners anywhere in the world, miners anywhere else who pay more for energy are pushed out of profitability and have to shut down shop. The difficulty adjustment in Bitcoin mining means that as more miners compete, those paying the most for energy are forced out of the market. This creates a clear incentive for miners to find the cheapest possible energy, which is predominately green and renewable and drives innovation in the space. Cheaper energy is great for humanity. Check out the recent work by ARK / Square exploring this.

Overall, these developments have made me hopeful and optimistic about the future again :)

4 comments

Small, fairly predictable amounts of inflation don't matter too much in the long term because long-term savings is typically not saved as cash, but in a productive asset. That's a feature, not a bug. Why should we reward people if they don't invest their money in something useful?

And this is why it would be better to figure out how not to reward people for buying cryptocurrency. It's not a productive investment, it's just holding.

> Higher per capita energy usage leads to higher quality of life.

If that energy is spent on, you know, improving quality of life.

With bitcoin all energy is wasted on producing virtual tokens and a rate of transactions that a Raspberry Pi could run 10 times over.

Not sure why this is being downvoted.

BTC is not an ecological disaster - just like video games aren't ecological disasters.

Both use lots of energy and GPUs. One is decentralized hard money, the other is a source of entertainment.

> BTC is not an ecological disaster - just like video games aren't ecological disasters.

False equivalence.

How so? Videogames are no less useful than Bitcoin. Like, if all videogames disappeared tomorrow, humanity would fundamentally be all right.
> Videogames are no less useful than Bitcoin. Like, if all videogames disappeared tomorrow, humanity would fundamentally be all right.

1. What you said, when we normalize logic, is: videogames are just as useless as bitcoin. If videogames disappeared, humanity would be allright. Same goes for bitcoin.

I wonder if that is exactly waht you were going for.

2. Videogames are not useless. You could start with the fundamental need of humanity for games in general. Yes, if videogames disappeared, we would find other things to replace them with. I wonder if someone would then pop up and say something inane like "BTC is not an ecological disaster - just like Gaelic football [1] is not an ecological disaster."

Secondly, videogames are increasingly found to reduce stress. They are used to treat various patients [2]. They broach the subjects such as "games as new medium" and "games as art". They create vast online communities.

Bitcoin (and blockchains in general) laboriously appends entries to an append-only log using the power-equivalent of several countries at a speed of a paraplegic snail [3]. And in ten years it hasn't found a single niche where the same operations can't be done faster and more efficiently (and are usually already done faster and more efficiently).

[1] I jest, but this is a thing of beauty. Watch the entire video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEAbWrdB9XU

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4688462/

[3] All-time high for bitcoin was 450k transactions per day: https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions To do this, it requires more power than most countries in the world: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-power-consu...

Since we're speaking about videogames, in 2006 Eve Online had 150 million DB transactions per day. To do that, Eve Online needs something like 6 database servers: https://www.eveonline.com/news/view/tranquility-tech-3

Bitcoin would need the heat death of the universe to handle a comparable load.

> I wonder if that is exactly waht (sic) you were going for.

Yes, it was. If you agree that Bitcoin is just as useless as videogames, and agree that videogames are not useless, you must also agree that Bitcoin is not useless.

I personally have no use for videogames, but I don't deny that many people do. I do, however, have use for an extremely resilient distributed timestampping service that takes several countries' energy to disrupt (which is what Bitcoin's blockchain is -- a public timestampping service). Turns out many people do, since running it is profitable.

> If you agree that Bitcoin is just as useless as videogames, and agree that videogames are not useless, you must also agree that Bitcoin is not useless.

Seems you missed that he disagreed on the first part. At least I read his "and videogames are useful because of this, and this, and ..." as saying that "as opposed to Bitcoin, videogames are useful because ..."

And, TBH, I've seen no proof of that first part.

> you must also agree that Bitcoin is not useless.

Why must I?

> Turns out many people do, since running it is profitable.

Being profitable doesn't make it useful.

This is why I don't like it when people call it a waste or meaningless. In my opinion, it's not a waste, but it is "excessively energy-consumptive". Sure, a lot of value is generated, but is that value commensurate with the cost? In the limit, what's the cap on this? Will Bitcoin mining consume 5% of the entire world's electricity in a decade? Is that really the best way to create a secure cryptocurrency? In addition to the potential environmental impact, what's the opportunity cost of that usage?

If Ethereum 2.0 rolls out and runs a PoS network without any issues for a year, 2 years, 3 years, what then? (Rather than debating the probability of that happening, for the sake of argument let's just hypothetically assume the transition does succeed and things run soothly for years.)

I suspect the community and devs won't even consider itas a topic for debate, though, which makes me think the cryptocurrency wars are going to get much more heated over the next 5 years. The cryptocurrencies you choose to use will be much more of a philosophical and ideological identity statement than it already is. Bitcoin-only vs. Ethereum-only vs. never-coiners. I'm genuinely pretty concerned it might reach the level of pro-life vs. pro-choice (vs. anti-natalist, I guess).