[kibwen]

The reason that bitcoin's energy usage is a philosophical nightmare is because it's a system where energy consumption is the product. As opposed to industries which are "merely" energy-intensive, let's take aluminum refining for example, spending more energy to refine aluminum does not create more demand for aluminum, but spending more energy on bitcoin increases the price of bitcoin, which induces more demand, which increases the price, which incentivizes mining, which costs more energy, and so on in a vicious cycle. Proof of work is a problem; it's conspicuous consumption on a hyper-industrial scale, and it's coming at the absolute worst time in human history for us to be wasting energy, let alone to be inventing the optimal machine for wasting energy at an increasing rate.

[TapWaterBandit]

Proof of Work is an energy-intensive solution to a very deep and old social problem: how do you verify transactions between parties over a great distance/online without a trusted intermediary?

Proof of work is enormously socially valuable and will change the world. Bitcoin may not be the PoW application to do it (although it also might be) but proof of work is here to stay because of the huge advantages it has over the existing system where individuals/institutions insert themselves between transactions to their own profit.

RE energy, not here to argue philosophy. Just going to point out that if that is your concern luckily the world is going over to renewables so that particular objection will be gone soon anyway.

[kibwen]

> Just going to point out that if that is your concern luckily the world is going over to renewables so that particular objection will be gone soon anyway.

This is dangerously missing the peril of the current situation.

The problem with our current energy makeup is not "there's not enough renewables".

The problem with our current energy makeup is "there are too many carbon emissions".

As a first-order effect, it does not matter how many renewables we bring online. What matters is taking fossil fuels offline. It does not matter if renewables make up an ever-increasing percentage of an increasing energy market, because the problem is not the relative market share of fossil fuels, it is the absolute amount of emissions, which is already more than our planet can handle. And the increasing demand for energy makes taking fossil fuel plants offline less viable than it otherwise would be, and bitcoin is a nontrivial component of that and it threatens to grow at an exponential pace, which makes it an existential threat to mankind.

Please trust me when I say that I do not give a damn about the price of bitcoin. What I care about is stopping runaway energy consumption, and from that perspective proof-of-work is the biggest existential threat to humanity since the atom bomb.

[npoc]

Harnessing energy is the basis for civilization. The amount of energy used is highly correlated to the level of civilization.

Using energy is not an issue, it's how we produce it that matters. This applies to all forms of energy use of which bitcoin is just a tiny fraction.

Bitcoin will not compete with current energy demand which is geographically constrained. Bitcoin miners can operate at any location in the world and are incentivised to use free, unwanted, waste energy. Any miners that try to increase the demand of current energy supplies will be uneconomical and go out of business.

Also miners using more energy does not directly increase the price of bitcoin. Ultimately the amount of (otherwise wasted) energy used by the network will be limited by the transaction fees which are a free market.

[TapWaterBandit]

> Please trust me when I say that I do not give a damn about the price of bitcoin. What I care about is stopping runaway energy consumption, and from that perspective proof-of-work is the biggest existential threat to humanity since the atom bomb.

Mate, this is ridiculous.

Global energy usage was 179000 Twh (terawatt hours) in 2022. (https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption)

Bitcoin energy usage was at its highest in 2022 at 200 Twh. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/881472/worldwide-bitcoin...)

So 200/179000 * 100 = 0.11%

Bitcoin energy usage accounted for 0.11% of global energy usage and you think it is the biggest threat to humanity since the A-Bomb? Bitcoin is entirely irrelevant to the grand scheme of things re climate emissions.

So you are wrong on this point:

> bitcoin is a nontrivial component of that and it threatens to grow at an exponential pace

Bitcoin IS a trivial component of overall emissions and even with an insane ramp up would not be close to being the biggest issue re emissions.

[Kbelicius]

> Bitcoin energy usage accounted for 0.11% of global energy usage and you think it is the biggest threat to humanity since the A-Bomb? Bitcoin is entirely irrelevant to the grand scheme of things re climate emissions.

GP already explained why he thinks that and you did not spend a word addressing that. Here is what GP said:

> The reason that bitcoin's energy usage is a philosophical nightmare is because it's a system where energy consumption is the product. As opposed to industries which are "merely" energy-intensive, let's take aluminum refining for example, spending more energy to refine aluminum does not create more demand for aluminum, but spending more energy on bitcoin increases the price of bitcoin, which induces more demand, which increases the price, which incentivizes mining, which costs more energy, and so on in a vicious cycle.

Basically, for BTC to "go to the moon" its energy consumption must also "go to the moon".

[TapWaterBandit]

I didn't address that point because it is conceptually and factually incorrect. But I will breakdown why for your benefit:

> The reason that bitcoin's energy usage is a philosophical nightmare is because it's a system where energy consumption is the product.

False. The "Product" is a permissionless global peer to peer financial network using a (relatively) non-depreciating commodity. Energy consumption is a side-effect of providing this product/service. I'm sure if you thought about it for a bit you would have to agree here. Noone is mining bitcoin for the sake of it, they are mining it for profit and the only reason bitcoin has value is other attributes of the network/commodity itself. So not a good start from OP.

> As opposed to industries which are "merely" energy-intensive, let's take aluminum refining for example, spending more energy to refine aluminum does not create more demand for aluminum, but spending more energy on bitcoin increases the price of bitcoin, which induces more demand, which increases the price, which incentivizes mining, which costs more energy, and so on in a vicious cycle.

This is factually incorrect and easy to see why. Here is a link to an overlapping chart showing the hashrate for bitcoin against the market cap (https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-marketcap-btc....). You'll notice the lack of connection between the market cap (overall price) and the hashing rate. This is an empirical fact based on the data we have so op is wrong once again.

It is true that price increases do incentivise more mining but the price increases aren't DRIVEN by increases in the mining. Otherwise it would be possible for anyone anywhere to spin up bitcoin farms and make guaranteed profit because the price would rise to a level commensurate with the energy expended. It is the other values of the network (peer-to-peer permissionless decentralised finance with an eventually depreciating commodity) that drive the price. Those are being priced by the market currently and more and more people are deciding to store wealth in the Bitcoin network as opposed to the Fiat network or other assets like property/gold/etc because they feel it gives a better combination of:

1. Store of value (or possibility for profit)

2. Functionality

Bitcoin mining is very often not profitable if you don't have cheap energy or do it collectively which is why it is moves around so much to find cheap energy sources (often using the cheapest forms of energy available which is burn off/extra gen that has no otherwise in grid) and miners pool to take a portion of the gains from mining the next block and getting the bitcoin that come with it.

OP's view of Bitcoin and proof of work is a very slanted one at best, completely factually inaccurate at worst.

[npoc]

All sound money has been proof of work since the start of time. It is fundamental to a lasting and fair monetary system. We currently have a fiat system where the population have to work for it, while the elite can effortlessly print it, becoming ever more unjustly powerful as a result. They are looting the world.

Even today, gold miners are working to dig up their proof of work which they can sell into the market. If the work they did was worth more than the gold they found, they'd stop. And if was worth less, more miners would mine, increasing the supply and devaluing the gold.

The only difference with bitcoin is that the work is abstracted. It's simply anchoring the creation of a digital token to work in the physical domain. At the same time, the work performed is protecting the network from attack - it's what makes the blockchain immutable. The work is not wasted - it is being stored as "walls" on top of each block. The further down the block chain you go the more walls of protection you would have to break. It's breathtakingly beautiful.

[npoc]

The main problem here is that you're looking at the energy use as a waste. It's absolutely not, but in order to understand why, you need to understand what's wrong with the current monetary system and the terrible effects it is having on the world.

You're also missing that bitcoin's game theory means that it will ultimately only use unwanted/wasted energy. Bitcoin miners can mine anywhere in the world and those trying to use energy that's in demand by the general population won't be economical.

[guappa]

> The main problem here is that you're looking at the energy use as a waste. It's absolutely not

It is. Mining is literally bruteforcing…

[npoc]

It's an abstraction of work. All sound money requires equivalent value work to produce. And the work done is stored as protective "walls" in the blockchain, one on top of each block, piled higher and higher as time goes on, to become impenetrable. It's quite beautiful.

[guappa]

It's literally doing busywork just to assign a value to the mining. It's beautiful if you're a business major who has no regard to real world.

[npoc]

What do think happens if you let people create money without doing the equivalent work?

[guappa]

Why do we let people create money where the work is "waste energy" instead of create money where the work is "build something we need"?

[smoldesu]

You waste less energy? Ethereum seemed to figure this out despite being entirely dysfunctional.

[smoldesu]

> but in order to understand why, you need to understand what's wrong with the current monetary system and the terrible effects it is having on the world.

Are we about to find out why, or do I have to pay for your memoir to understand? I've been dying to hear you expand on this for a while now.

[olalonde]

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ is a good starting point.