[malermeister]

Could you please elaborate the advantages of pow crypto mining that outweigh the environmental concerns associated with it?

Please cite specific, real-world examples if possible, not vague ideas and promises that haven't come to fruition yet.

[troorl]

I deem the fiat standard responsible for countless wars and atrocities that have occurred in the past 100 years. The environmental issues that come from mining seem so minor and insignificant in the long run that all the aggression that is justified by them prevents me from taking such attacks seriously. Every year humanity develops better solar panels, leverages geothermal energy more efficiently, improves the fission NPPs and comes closer to designing fusion reactors. It's only a matter of time before we enter the age of cheap, green and almost limitless energy.

I think it's a question of mentality. Some people bet on human ingenuity, and some are willing to halt the progress completely because it hurts "mother earth" in their imagination.

[vesinisa]

The environmental impact of Bitcoin is not any less real than the power consumption & CO2 emissions of an entire country.[1] Since limitless energy is obviously not yet here (and is very unlikely to become a reality in the short term), it is irresponsible to dismiss these concerns.

After fourteen years of running this experiment, Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) have not yet delivered a single real world application that would be beneficial to the society at large - as far as I know.

I can't help wondering if some of the advocates, who continue to defend these technologies, own themselves cryptocurrencies and have a personal profit motive in glorifying/hyping the technology - for example by hinting that cryptocurrencies would have solved "countless wars and atrocities of the past 100 years".

[1]: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/

[malermeister]

So basically it's a purely ideological pitch? I'm sorry, but I'd rather spend our limited resources on practical progress that benefits people.

If we do end up in the "age of cheap, green and almost limitless energy", we can use some for crypto, why not. But we're not there yet and I'd rather not put the cart before the horse, given how important an issue energy and climate are.

Your way of accusing sceptics of being in the way of "progress" recalls the promises of soviet planners or various cults. Beware of vague salvation promises in the future - utopian fantasies usually have dystopian outcomes.

[troorl]

I don't consider it an ideological pitch, but who am I to characterise my own words?

[actually_a_dog]

You haven't offered any objective evidence that your viewpoint is correct, which ipso facto implies it's a purely ideologically based statement. To paraphrase an old expression, "you can 'deem' in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first."

Your tone is also similar to that of the stereotypical 14-year old "libertarian/ancap" living in their parents' basement, and your only other comment on this site outside this thread is one from over 6 years ago accusing the Washington Post of publishing fake news. This doesn't affect the truth or validity of what you say, but it doesn't help, either.

[DonHopkins]

Yes, I was getting a distinct "parents' basement" libertarian larva vibe from his tone and lack of evidence too. I wonder if he knows the price of a bar of soap, or cares about externalities or anyone but himself.

It also doesn't help his case that the Levenshtein Distance from "troorl" to "troll" is only 2.

https://planetcalc.com/1721/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31401754

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv_-KOdM6Wk

[DonHopkins]

>It's only a matter of time before we enter the age of cheap, green and almost limitless energy.

If it's coming so soon, then how about you immediately stop burning coal and shilling ugly ape jpegs for a while, until all your utopian libertarian promises are finally fulfilled and free of unintended consequences.

But until such a time, just put a lid on it, m'kay?

[Beltiras]

None of what you mention strictly demands POW blockchains. Is the nature of money changing? Perhaps. Does it need POW to change? No.

[cortic]

There really aren't any environmental concerns with crypto. Crypto (PoW), like any other industry, invests in energy infrastructure. The concern right now is that its sometimes cheaper to pollute than to use green energy. All our politicians have had plenty time to ensure this is not the case; We should be more than angry that they have failed.

If we establish, through regulations, subsidies and taxes, a situation where it is always cheaper to use green energy; Crypto would bring nothing but massive investment in green energy development.

[malermeister]

If we accept that energy is a limited resource, we have to think about how we allocate it. PoW Crypto takes up a lot - what does it give us to justify that expense?

Even if we get to a point where we can power crypto purely with green energy - that might still mean that not enough green energy is available to power other, potentially more important use cases.

[cortic]

I don't accept that energy is a limited resource, like all other resources it requires investment. Reduce investment and you get less of that resource. Increase investment and you get more of that resource at a cheaper rate (as mass production kicks in at different levels). Crypto, and any other popular industry; Invest in the cheapest energy available, growing that market while profiting from it. Its OUR job (democratically) to ensure that green energy is the cheapest energy available...

There is really no other way to fix this.

[malermeister]

There's a limited amount of fossil fuels available.

There's limited amount of space for solar panels, wind turbines and hydroelectric power plants.

Even if we were to achieve fusion, we'd be limited by e = mc^2, where m is limited within a radius that is reachable without losing energy on transport.

You can't fix a physics problem with market ideology.

[cortic]

If the limit is unreachable except in our imagination, we can think of it as unlimited. At least for the purposes of policy right now.

And i think you are being unfair conflating the current energy shortage with a hard limit that the human race may never reach. The current energy shortage might have been averted if the investment from industries like crypto, was invested in renewables..

[plebianRube]

Energy is not a pie. Producers overproduce energy in order to meet peak demand. Most grid mining uses off peak energy, since the utility would rather sell it cheaper than not have anyone buy it at all.

Off grid mining finds stranded energy which stops methane being flared directly into the atmosphere and converts most of it to CO2, which is factually better than any amount of CH4 being released.

By making stranded energy viable PoW actually allows green energy production to be built where existing demand cannot make it economically viable.

[eis]

You should probably specifically mention PoW and not crypto mining in general. There are crypto mining mechanisms like PoS which use a negligible amount of energy.

[tromp]

The term mining is only used for PoW. For PoS the term staking is used.

[malermeister]

Fair point, edited.