[notch656a]

Quantify the environment cost that has been borne by bitcoin and now compare it to the cost by overheating or cooling houses (except perhaps a few elderly or infants, no one needs a house to stay within 60-80 degree band, you can survive with much less heating/cooling energy usage). Then explain to us how anyone living in a comfortable room temperature heated home that complains about bitcoin isn't a hypocrite, using environmental concerns as propaganda to shame people using computation cycles in some way they deem unfit while simultaneously restraining their outrage for AI training or video games.

This comment is unpopular, because it hits too close to the heart of home for many of you sitting in your comfortable home wasting energy on heat and A/C while complaining about environmental consumption of bitcoin.

[beaconstudios]

"You criticise bitcoin for using more electricity than Ireland while using disproportionately high levels of coal power usage, and yet you live in a house. Hypocrite!"

This isn't a cogent argument. Yes, overheating or overcooling houses is also bad. If AI training used as much electricity as Ireland I'd be critical of that too.

[notch656a]

Heating and cooling uses way more electricity than Ireland. This message is for the hypocrites who complain about bitcoin while keeping their house above 60 when it's cold, or those running A/C below 80 when its hot. Y'all are wasting way more energy than bitcoin, while many of you simultaneously complain about bitcoin.

>This isn't a cogent argument. Yes, overheating or overcooling houses is also bad. If AI training used as much electricity as Ireland I'd be critical of that too.

It's a cogent argument to point out the hypocrisy. If you want to argue we should create a watt-police or ensure externalities of power consumption are better accounted for, that's a different argument.

[beaconstudios]

I mainly just want to ensure the earth doesn't burn. Yes people should ideally not be overheating their home (could easily be done using smart meters if electric companies weren't incentivised to ignore it) and many other things like reducing fossil fuel usage. Bitcoin consumes massive amounts of energy for basically no benefit except pure money wonkery, which is no benefit at all. It's a net negative in every possible way.

[notch656a]

>Bitcoin consumes massive amounts of energy for basically no benefit except pure money wonkery, which is no benefit at all. It's a net negative in every possible way.

Well I disagree here. It provides benefit for many people. The example I continually use for me personally is buying precious metals with <30 min clearing without paying credit card fees (and I really hate funding credit card companies anyway). But people in Argentina also using it for reasons just to have efficient way of receiving dollar for free-lance work.

I think we're in agreement we would do well to be as efficient as we can with our resources. It would be great to find a way to eliminate externalities of energy production/consumption.

[kaba0]

But those rules/fees are there for a reason. You (and me also) may not agree with those reasons, but still you are just circumventing a law made through a democratic process.

[notch656a]

What law am I circumventing when I take my legally acquired, W-2 reported salary and buy litecoin and trade it for bullion from APMEX?

[beaconstudios]

Are you buying precious metals in the abstract, commodities market sense or are you manufacturing? Because if its the former, I still don't think that's a net positive.

I do think it has some small benefits like transferring money where there are no other options. But the vast majority of the network's use is in purely financial use and justified by HODLers and libertarian types. Its existence is largely a downside on its own even without the huge energy costs.

[notch656a]

>Are you buying precious metals in the abstract, commodities market sense or are you manufacturing? Because if its the former, I still don't think that's a net positive.

Y'all told me crypto was bad and now I'm bad for dumping crypto to buy precious metals? The litecoin transaction I do uses $0.02 of electricity. $0.02. Ever left a lightbulb on longer than you should have? Spent $0.02 in gas to go to the bank to get fiat? Just can't win. I don't really like holding dollars as the government constantly inflates them, and I see them as part of a system that bombs innocent children abroad and locks up foreign nationals without even a trial. I see it as irresponsible not to store emergency wealth _somewhere_. I'm committed to not become a public charge and I wouldn't resort to begging from family unless there were no other choice and even then I'd probably rather just starve

[rsynnott]

A lot more than Ireland now; that was years ago. It now uses more electricity than Argentina (about 6 Irelands).

[beaconstudios]

Oh, wonderful.

[brokencode]

Of course we could live at 60 degrees in the winter, but most people would agree that their lives are meaningfully improved by increasing the temperature to closer to 70-72.

On the other hand, Bitcoin provides no meaningful benefit to society compared to other currency. The only real benefits of Bitcoin are that it makes ransomware easier to accomplish (which is bad for most people) and that it has made some people a lot of money due to its pyramid scheme qualities (again, bad for most people).

[notch656a]

Crypto provides extraordinary meaning to many people in society compared to other currency. Argentinian freelancers use it to get paid, for instance due to systemic issues with financial transaction in their country.

One big one to me is buying precious metals online with <30 minute clearing time without paying credit card fees. Literally nothing else I can find accomplishes that; I didn't even set out to use crypto for that purpose it just happened to be the best way to do it in my circumstance.

>lives are meaningfully improved by increasing the temperature to closer to 70-72.

Well I could say "nuh uh" and then you could say about bitcoin "nuh uh" but then we'd both merely be saying the other's use of energy consumption is bad. If you have an issue with making sure every bit of electricity is only used for necessities, why don't you go out and say that or explain how you want to make sure externalities are paid for by power consumers. Singling out bitcoin by people living near room temperature with aid of heating/cooling is just hypocrisy.

[brokencode]

That’s a fair point. We should be including the cost of pollution and climate change with the price of energy, and if we were, then I’d care a lot less about the energy use for what I consider nonessential.

That is unfortunately not the world we live in though, and probably never will be due to political reasons.

[paulryanrogers]

Citizens of Kazakhstan or Iran suffering from brown outs or people near recently restarted coal plants may prefer argentinians seek other ways to work around currency and corruption problems.

[spinny]

> On the other hand, Bitcoin provides no meaningful benefit to society compared to other currency.

Decentralization and censorship resistance does not exist in the fiat world. Ask some greek people if Bitcoin was useful to buy food.

Because it's easy for you to open a bank account and have you money secured, it doesn't mean that other people have this luxury.

[notch656a]

People who think money is 'secure' from seizure in the bank aren't thinking one step ahead.