[awrence]

It also demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of how the energy markets work and how as just about the only intermittent buyer of last resort, proof of work is about to positively impact the energy infrastructure in a pretty substantial way and will probably converge on tapping into exclusively stranded / wasted energy (about 30% of energy production vs less than 0.1% of global production used by pow today). If anyone is genuinely interesting in educating themselves on the topic I'd recommend the two fairly recent episodes of What Bitcoin Did with guest Harry Sudock.

[Majromax]

> It also demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of how the energy markets work

Which energy markets?

It's not like bitcoin mining is legally or geographically constrained to countries with well-functioning energy markets and a reputation for environmental thinking.

Proof of work schemes could provide a positive marginal return when energy would otherwise be curtailed, but that's just a side effect of being a very price-elastic source of demand. These schemes can just as easily operate with polluting energy made cheap through local political corruption.

For that matter, the freest energy is stolen energy, so mining malware will forever have the edge on that front.

Bitcoin is neither clean nor dirty because it has no governance to make it such. At absolute best it is a neutral energy buyer of last resort, replicating all our political flaws on the world stage.

[pjc50]

Bitcoin mining is not a buyer of last resort, it's a capital asset that the owner wants to be run continuously in order to make back the capital expense, and produces no ultimately useful output.

[awrence]

It's a misconception to think a miner will only locate on energy sites with continuous supply. It can still make perfect sense for a miner to locate on a site with variable demand (which by the way is basically every energy production site in the world that is by design compelled to build to accommodate peak demand). What a miner will do is then negotiate energy costs (which are 80-90% of their variable costs) with the producer who is happy to sell his excess production at any cost above 0 for all excess power untapped. All it takes is enough excess production at a (much lower) price than conventional rates for this to breakeven positively vs full operation alternatives.

As chips commoditize and energy trends towards 100% of all costs, miners will step into these situations exclusively.

As far as your claim that bitcoin is useless that's a personal judgement. My personal judgement is that reintroducing sound fixed supply censorship resistant money to the world is of enormous benefit. But that's beyond the scope here. I don't think it's constructive to make judgements about what people value and chose to expend resources towards. If you have a problem with externalities then have a debate about that. But who are we to judge if someone wants to heat their pool? If they do so through carbon emissions then consider taxing that. The sustainability of the energy production is your issue really, not the energy use.

[lottin]

Meanwhile, in the real world, bitcoin miners are buying coal plants to "mine" an imaginary mineral.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-miners-are-giving-new-l...

[DonHopkins]

Wrong. Stop making false excuses and rationalizations and shilling for Bitcoin's Proof of Waste. Bitcoin is China's way of exporting coal through the atmosphere. Bitcoin shills also produce huge quantities of hot air and CO2 by endlessly repeating false claims like "Bitcoin doesn't run on coal".

Why you’re paying Bitcoin’s energy bill:

https://review.chicagobooth.edu/finance/2021/article/why-you...

>The vast computing power needed to create new bitcoins has driven up energy bills for residents and businesses

>Millions of people who have neither mined nor traded a bitcoin are nevertheless paying for bitcoins to exist. That’s because the vast computing power needed to create new bitcoins consumes enormous amounts of electricity and has driven up energy bills for residents and businesses, according to University of California at Berkeley’s Matteo Benetton and Adair Morse and Chicago Booth’s Giovanni Compiani.

HN Discussion:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28863445