[lolsal]

> Bitcoin disappearing tomorrow wouldn't make a dent in our current fossil fuel emissions. Bitcoin mining ASICs don't emit CO2. Take it up with policymakers who subsidize fossil fuels.

This sounds a lot like you're not contesting the assertion that Bitcoin uses lots of energy, but deflecting the issue by saying it is irrelevant that it uses lots of energy and it's more the responsibility of policymakers to make the energy it uses clean instead of dirty. Am I understanding you correctly?

I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue that mining literally emits CO2; the concern is about where the energy itself comes from.

[tossl568]

I'm not contesting it no. And I'm saying it's a perfectly valid use of energy. It will use even more energy in future. And it's worth it. Energy use doesn't need defending and isn't a bad thing. Energy secures the financial network, it's doing that work, even if the network isn't useful to you. Disincentivising fossil fuel use for every purpose needs to happen, not just Bitcoin.

[forum_ghost]

It’s very disturbing to read comments on an allegedly techie forum that insist the expansion of energy capacity is somehow bad.

What, we will be the first spacefaring, Kardashev Type 2 civilization that is powered solely by windmills?

Why is energy demonized so much?

There will be 100x, 1000x more energy use in the future in the entire economy.

You are worried some tiny fraction of a percent is an issue?

[Nursie]

> You are worried some tiny fraction of a percent is an issue?

YES.

Adding a whole new country to the map right now, when we don't have enough clean energy to go around, and we are killing our environment with emissions from energy generation, is a BAD idea.

Far from helping to increase demand for clean energy, as is the meme, cryptocurrency mining is incentivising the return of fossil fuel power plants to service (as has happened in the US and other places) and using vast amounts of coal power in places like Kazakhstan. It's the opposite of what we should be doing, which is reducing our power footprint until we have a handle on things.

> There will be 100x, 1000x more energy use in the future in the entire economy.

Maybe, but if that was using our current mix of tech, we'd cook ourselves in the process.

[inter_netuser]

>when we don't have enough clean energy to go around,

so you are telling me renewables can't even handle 0.5% increase in demand?

What a dead end technology. Can't wait until we upgrade to nuclear instead.

[Nursie]

No, actually, that wasn't a point I was making, nor is it even adjacent to one. Thanks for playing though.