@jalcine Etherium claims they're going to drop their energy consumption by 99% by the end of this year.

I don't really trust that number, but at least they're trying. We'll see how it'll turns out. :thonking:

@jalcine I've got this pin prepped as a prize just in case 🌟

@jalcine so what you're saying is, we should open refineries


and what's important: to remove those sources that cause the cancer nowadays in such tragic manner, in the first place.

"To fix the root, not the leaves"

@stevenroose @jalcine Well, there is an economic feedback cycle — when it costs less than US$1 to mine US$1 of a commodity, investors snap up mining opportunities until only more expensive opportunities remain. So we can expect the amount of energy used per Bitcoin to grow dramatically as energy prices fall through the 2020s, leaving gold, copper, silver, and maybe even aluminum in the dust, since mining Bitcoin costs only energy, not human lives and water pollution.

@stevenroose @jalcine Presumably if the Bitcoin price remained approximately constant, the reward halvings would be made up for by increased transaction fees or by reduced mining and thus reduced difficulty and thus reduced energy per coin. But it took me a lot less than 45 minutes to invent that opinion, so take it with a grain of salt :)

I agree with your dismissal of the original mindless hot take.

@stevenroose @jalcine Heh, I like the take at 4m18s: "Saying Bitcoin uses too much energy is saying it should be less secure." I mean you could imagine ways for this statement to be false but nobody has shown a way for it to use less energy without being less secure *yet*. (It's a safe bet that our original interlocutor here, like Trump voters or Grauniad reporters, have no idea what we're talking about.)

@stevenroose "just a side effect" 😂😂😂

Serious question: what is your purpose in making this comment?

@stevenroose why do you think the OP or anyone else here needs help understanding Bitcoin?

@stevenroose yeah, you said it doesn't make sense, but you didn't really explain why it doesn't make sense.

>>"Bitcoin "mining" is not about harvesting coins; that's just a side-effect." Arguing that which was not contested (that energy consumption is a side effect)

>>"#Bitcoin mining is what makes it have its unique status of sound money and immutability of its ledger."

Nobody claims otherwise


@stevenroose >>"Whether you generate 12.5 BTC per block now or just get mining fees in about 100 years, the mining cost will stay and it is needed for the money not to lose this unique status."

Kinda supports the OP's point, that the currency's existence is not worth the costs it imposes on society

>>"It makes no sense to see the cost of Bitcoin mining as a per coin bases and compare it with gold"

Why does it make no sense?

@stevenroose you just said that it makes "no sense" to compare the energy costs if gold mining vs Bitcoin "mining". Now you appear to suggest it could make sense, if one accounts for the costs of gold storage and safekeeping. (What about the storage & upkeep cost of Bitcoin?) The relevance of monetary policy from 100 years ago to your objection to the comparison isn't clear. The time frame of the cost comparison in the paper, on the other hand, is very clear. Your explanation doesn't satisfy.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Social @ PV

Social is the primary social media platform for the forth coming fourth version of Play Vicious, a new initiative built to bring attention to the plethora of creative acts that don't get the shine they deserve.
For more details about the project and how to support, go here.