[tsimionescu]

There is a finite amount of energy though, so even if it would be optimal to have infinite supply, we can't.

And even if that weren't the case, your argument still makes no sense. Every watt that Bitcoin mining incentivizes is then consumed on Bitcoin mining, it's a zero sum game.

It's like building heaters in the desert: if you're willing to spend money for 1GW of electricity to run your heater, someone will build a 1GW plant for you. Now there is nominally one more 1GW plant in the world, but there is 0 extra available power, you're using up all of it to heat the desert.

[alchemist1e9]

Your argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both energy markets and the role of Bitcoin in the modern economy. Asserting there’s a ‘finite’ amount of energy oversimplifies the issue and ignores the capacity for human ingenuity to tap into ever-more efficient and renewable energy sources. The notion of energy being a zero-sum game is a defeatist and static view that hampers progress.

Bitcoin mining, far from the wasteful ‘heating the desert’ analogy you propose, incentivizes the development of excess energy infrastructure that can be redirected or scaled based on demand fluctuations, acting as a catalyst for innovation in energy production and management.

Moreover, your argument smacks of a dangerous ‘divide the cake’ mentality, suggesting we should cap our aspirations and limit access to energy and technological advancement to maintain a status quo. Should we tell emerging economies that they must forego the benefits of modern technology because we’ve decided there’s simply no more room for energy growth? That’s not only patronizing but inherently regressive.

The beauty of Bitcoin and its underlying energy consumption is that it encourages the search for more efficient, cost-effective, and often greener energy solutions. This is not about wasting resources; it’s about driving forward a future where energy is more abundant, accessible, and sustainable for all. To stifle this under the guise of protecting resources is to deny the very essence of human progress and innovation.

[jcranmer]

> ignores the capacity for human ingenuity to tap into ever-more efficient and renewable energy sources

> Bitcoin mining, far from the wasteful ‘heating the desert’ analogy you propose, incentivizes the development of excess energy infrastructure that can be redirected or scaled based on demand fluctuations, acting as a catalyst for innovation in energy production and management.

You do realize that the article here is directly pointing to evidence that the bulk of large bitcoin mining operations are being driven from existing fossil fuel plants that seemed to be on their way to decommissioning?

This is what I don't like about your argument: it's a standard Bitcoin talking point, but people struggle to point to actual examples of Bitcoin mining spurring investment in renewable energy, while it's easy to point to actual examples of Bitcoin mining spurring investment in decommissioned/decommissioning fossil fuel power plants. The facts on the ground just do not support your argument, period.

[alchemist1e9]

Yes I am aware of the propaganda article contents.

Blaming Bitcoin for enabling these fossil fuel plants to continue is a red herring that distracts from the real issues: ineffective global energy policies and the threat Bitcoin poses to centralized financial systems. It’s easier for governments and critics to scapegoat Bitcoin than to admit their failure in promoting renewable energy or to face the uncomfortable truth that Bitcoin challenges their control over monetary policies. The narrative that Bitcoin only supports dirty energy is a convenient oversimplification, ignoring the broader economic incentives at play and the potential for technological innovation to drive a shift toward renewable energy sources. Let’s not mistake symptom for cause; the focus should be on fixing flawed energy policies, not demonizing a technology pushing for decentralization and innovation.

[lostlogin]

I’m still stuck on the first bit; you seem to sincerely believe that bitcoin is good for the environment, whilst also acknowledging it’s mainly powered by coal.

One can justify all sorts or environmental destruction with this your argument. Pouring oil on the beach is pushing local regulators to act, spurring the creation of less harmful lubricants.

The numbers show bitcoin mining is doing harm.

[alchemist1e9]

Comparing Bitcoin mining to pouring oil on the beach is intellectually lazy. Bitcoin incentivizes the search for the cheapest energy, which increasingly means renewable. Unlike oil spills, Bitcoin’s ‘harm’ is driving a real search for energy innovation, not just cleanup. Moreover, it’s serving a crucial economic function, providing a decentralized financial system that aligns incentives with human progress. Trivializing such a groundbreaking innovation overlooks the broader benefits it offers in terms of both economic freedom and the push towards sustainable energy solutions.

[lostlogin]

The energy isn’t making anything and it’s causing harm mining due to its vast energy usage. Buzz words and greenwashing don’t change that. Scrounging for the cheapest power source doesn’t make it special, everyone wants cheap energy. We have money whether or not you mine crypto and time will tell whether or not its groundbreaking innovations free us. So far it’s been scams, hacks, failures and waste. Let’s see what happens next.