Bitcoin is the most durable money we've had, it can never be disposed of. Lost, perhaps.
Energy consumption != energy production. Bitcoin is incentivizing reusable energy and moving energy to cheaper locations, further from cities. I suggest you look into how it's actually quite positive for the Earth.
There's nothing about Bitcoin that incentives mining with green energy sources more than dirty one. If coal electricity is cheaper, then bitcoin incentives burning coal. The only somewhat valid rebutals to the energy consumption arguments I know of are:
- a lot of it is spare power that would be wasted otherwise (only partially true).
- it uses less energy overall than governments spend protecting their fiat money's value (not that comparable since fiat can also be used as currency).
- the gold industry uses a lot of energy too (but I doubt Bitcoin will reduce the energy spent on gold, it will probably just add up).
EDIT: completed gold mining point following comment
> gold mining uses a lot of energy too (but I doubt Bitcoin will reduce the energy spent on gold mining, it will probably just add up
Why do people keep making the comparison to gold mining? It's inappropriate.
Gold mining is bad for the value of gold, because it increases the amount of gold in the world. Eventually, the gold coffers on Earth will deplete and there will be no more gold mining.
Bitcoin mining is necessary for the value of bitcoin, otherwise there can be no certainty of the blockchain. After most of the bitcoins get minted, the mining will still have to continue out of transaction fees.
The cost of mining bitcoin needs to be compared to the cost of gold storage and handling of gold transactions, not gold mining.
> gold mining uses a lot of energy too (but I doubt Bitcoin will reduce the energy spent on gold mining, it will probably just add up).
I'm not sure it will add up. It seems to me that different stores of value compete directly with each other, because you can store value one way or the other way.
You know we have a limited amount of green energy production right now, right? It's not exactly green if your bitcoin mining is using wind energy, while a bunch of other stuff is stuck with coal.
We also know that this theory is really, really stupid: The kind of self-justifying idiocy that people don't come up with unless they're already deeply committed to a point of view come what may, logic and fact need not apply.
I was going to add a disclaimer to my post along the lines of "not saying I believe or disbelieve this theory", but I was tired of adding disclaimers to all my posts.
> Are you really going to claim that there isn't a demand for green energy already?
Is a disingenuous argument. Of course there is already demand for green energy. Meanwhile, Bitcoin increases the demand so much that people are apparently outraged by the increase.
> Of course there is already demand for green energy. Meanwhile, Bitcoin increases the demand so much that people are apparently outraged by the increase
Assuming that you think you're serious: Increasing the demand for energy (and it's not "demand for green energy" it's demand for energy, period) is not, has not been and never will be a green strategy in itself.
This is easy to understand, unless you choose not to.
1. Wind/solar energy are being trumpeted around the world as the cheapest source of electricity available.
2. Bitcoin miners' profits are directly `sale price of BTC - buy price of electricity`. Other costs are marginal in comparison.
3. BTC mining is a extremely competitive, trivially mobile, trivially liquid, global market.
4. Given 1, 2 & 3 there is a lot of fretting that BTC is creating a coal-powered financial system.
With the recent spike, the currently reasonable cost for a fast, median-sized transaction is $10.46 [1] [2] According to the fretting articles I read, that is enough to power an average home for a 23 days and motivates sending over 300kg (700lb) of C02 into the air [3] That's 35 gallons of gasoline at 20lb CO2/gallon.
:/
For what it's worth, I get the concern. But, I also see equal shares of BTC hate|BTC fanboyism everywhere I go. Latching on to the environmental concerns of BTC is trendy right now. It's hard to argue against without sounding like an asshole and it's not entirely false. But, it's not entirely honest either. Everything I read and calculate shows that BTC makes total sense as a defacto green energy subsidy. But, that does not spark outrage. So, instead there is a lot of fretting about the second rise of a coal-powered economy.
IMHO, the way Ethereum is going is great: Bootstrap with POW then switch to POS after enough investment is built-up that staking actually means something. It's arguable that the best use of BTC at this point is to burn them all to bootstrap more POS tokens. We just need alternatives that inspire enough confidence to motivate people to convert their BTC over.
> Everything I read and calculate shows that BTC makes total sense as a defacto green energy subsidy.
Then you must be reading in a bubble, as this is nonsense. Self-justifying fantasising.
Throwing energy away (which from an outside POV, this is merely an example of) is not and never has been a green energy strategy. I mean that very literally: the green people are very keen on electricity demand reduction, always have been, and are not going to change this. Because they're not wrong.
Key terms to google: Energy conservation, Energy Efficiency, energy demand reduction, Negawatt
Crazy, I know. But, these are not contradictory strategies.
You can have everyone work hard to reduce their energy usage. You can have tax-funded subsidies to motivate green supply increase despite targeting reduced demand. And, that's all lovely and great.
At the same time, you can have a voracious, highly mobile demand for the cheapest energy around. You know, the kind that solar and wind is supplying, but sometimes in mildly inconvenient locations. This does not actually reduce the supply for everyone else. It's not a zero-sum game. Supply follows demand. This horrendous cadre of buyers directly pay for increased production of cheap green energy that otherwise would not have been set up at all. Thus, ramping up equipment production and economy of scale. And, motivating the creation of supply that otherwise would have been too risky to invest in.
Supply follows demand is basic economics. Buy up green energy and the suppliers will use your money to build more supply in order to expand their operations to fit the larger market.
Energy consumption != energy production. Bitcoin is incentivizing reusable energy and moving energy to cheaper locations, further from cities. I suggest you look into how it's actually quite positive for the Earth.