[masswerk]

The article is really about the environmental cost of the network. Breaking it down to transactions is just a basic tool to promote understanding and quite a common one (like in cost of ownership ratios.) Mind that the whole purpose of the network is still to enable and maintain these transactions. The article eventually transitions from there to the total cost of the network in TWh and the number of those participating in this network by individual transactions.

[yieldcrv]

Its next section does slightly better, after doubling and tripling down on the household consumption framework.

The source of energy is way more important, bitcoin's source of energy is pretty good compared to any industry, and it can be better. Individual vigilance should be placed on ensuring that the overall source of energy for bitcoin gets better. because some of those major sources are reducing pollution and emissions. more mining can happen at more of those places. while other energy sources can be avoided.

[WorldMaker]

Except that energy usage is mostly zero-sum: if Bitcoin is using all renewable energy sources [0], then all other uses of energy must use dirtier sources if those sources are already heavily utilized by bitcoin. Homes have to use more coal if Bitcoin is using all the wind/hydro. The pool of available energy resources is currently quite finite and while "the grid" abstracts away most of the sources from your view as an electricity user, it doesn't eliminate the fact that there are some very big zero-sum tradeoffs between the sources and "the grid" will adjust to increased demand with increased supply of increasingly dirty sources to meet that demand.

[0] Which is a presumption that is extremely arguable given how much we've seen shutdowns/restarts of coal-powered plants in for instance China and Kazakhstan impact the Bitcoin mining pools over time.

[yieldcrv]

> Except that energy usage is mostly zero-sum

So great that its not totally zero-sum. Now that we both acknowledge that, and a large portion of bitcoin mining is using energy sources that are not taking away from other energy uses, and a larger portion of bitcoin mining can use more of this kind of energy. Because, well we've come full circle, Bitcoin doesn't use that much energy. There is way more untapped energy, thats been there for decades just being wasted and spewed away, because nobody else could figure out a use for it.. except the bitcoin miners.

[WorldMaker]

You have a very different understanding of the word "mostly" than I do. You are also presuming that by the parts not covered by "mostly" in my hedge that I mean "positive sum", but I very much was considering and including cases that are truly "negative sum" games where more consumption is actively worse for all players involved. (For physical example: blackouts and brownouts.)

You are also assuming that Bitcoin is a good use of energy, which is also not something that I would agree with. Bitcoin mining is a massively distributed partial preimage attack on a cryptographic hash function of some importance to internet/world security and I have a very hard time seeing that as a good (both as in good ethics and as in good utility) use of energy.

[yieldcrv]

Yes, I'm familiar with the flowchart and how the goal posts always move to "but I don't like that energy use anyway, so it doesn't matter how wrong I was earlier, surely something else must be able to use that energy". correct me if I'm wrong because its not intended to be a strawman.

But, bitcoin mining at flare gas sites disconnected from the grid is a significant source of the amount of energy being used bitcoin mining, and this use reduces pollution and emission over 60%, and it takes away from nothing else. And if there was any vigilance towards proof of work it should be to ensure more of this happens, and less of other sources. because obviously the flaring isn't going to stop, and the proof of work isn't going to stop, so lets focus on the parts you can influence.

[WorldMaker]

Those were two separate points, so I don't believe I'm moving any goal posts. You are right, believing it is too much energy usage and believing it is bad energy usage are unrelated things.

You are also probably correct that proof of work is unlikely to stop at this point without either massive government intervention or a bubble pop massive enough to entirely dry out bitcoin investors.

Where we seem to disagree is that I think because it is both too much energy usage and frighteningly bad energy usage, at this point I'm in optimistic moments hoping for massive government intervention and cynically hoping for the massive bubble pop. I take no solace whatsoever in how much of that energy wastage is "renewable".

I think we can find much better uses for renewable energy than proof of work. Even if it is just putting that energy to work in giant gravity batteries and whatnot.

Speaking of moving the goal posts: flare gas sites are the exact opposite of renewable energy and I'm very confused why you'd even bring them up if you were trying to make a point that proof of work uses more renewable sources than not.