Hacker News Reader

>Why is everyone obsessed with bitcoin electricity consumption? I wonder how much energy is required by the banking system to operate

People care because Bitcoin is, by design, massively wasteful. The banking system's energy use can be curtailed with green tech. Bitcoin's entire ledger is powered by proof of work, which by definition requires computers to grind at maximum power calculating millions of hashes. And the difficulty goes up if more people are mining. And on top of that, the Bitcoin network is extremely slow and several orders of magnitude less efficient than other banking systems in terms of transactions per second.

Everyone is obsessed because we're wasting damn near 1% of the world's energy so nerds can speculate on Dunning-Krugerrands and it's not doing anyone any favours in the long run.

> People care because Bitcoin is, by design, massively wasteful. The banking system's energy use can be curtailed with green tech.

Still does not explain how the current banking industry along with others, such as the entertainment industry is not "massively wasteful" by design. Sure, maybe a small portion of the banking system's energy can be curtailed with green tech, but what about the 24 hour ATM, the light posts at the banks, the AC units in each branch, the massive skyscrapers in which all of the banks corporate offices operate? and the energy required to build all of that infrastructure? As stated already, there are countless number of things that "waste energy", and in some cases "by design". Check out "b.s. jobs" on wikipedia.

>but what about the 24 hour ATM

:D how many hours of an ATM running do you think it takes to get to 300kW or 1 single bitcoin transaction?

I’m going to guess that a single ATM might not hit 300kW in a year.

Your sense is scale is way wrong.

You're right, I didn't keep scale in mind when listing examples. Didn't think it mattered since there are hundreds of relevant things that consume energy at different scales. Next time I'll avoid listing things that can be cherrypicked to make a relevant counter argument.

> Sure, maybe a small portion of the banking system's energy can be curtailed with green tech, but what about the 24 hour ATM, the light posts at the banks, the AC units in each branch, the massive skyscrapers in which all of the banks corporate offices operate? and the energy required to build all of that infrastructure?

The point is, that waste is all upkeep. Something the system tries to minimize, as it bleeds money through it. If ATMs can be made more efficient, the system saves money. In Bitcoin, OTOH, waste is not upkeep but a feature, which the system tries to maximize.

> which the system tries to maximize

How exactly the system is trying to maximize waste?

In fact, miners did more progress on efficiency in terms of pure hashrate/watt with a million time improvement in past 10 years, than banking industry ever.

It is demand, that is driving the energy usage, not the system on its own. I agree with the person above, that it is basically justified by increasing consumption of the service.

>Still does not explain how the current banking industry along with others, such as the entertainment industry is not "massively wasteful" by design

a) The entertainment industry is irrelevant to the discussion of Bitcoin vs traditional banking systems. It's a red herring. Cut it out.

b) Bitcoin is using an amount of electricity comparable to the country of Ireland. The banking system might use that much power, but they're doing millions of card transactions a minute - there's actual returns and actual business being done. And literally everything you described is an externality that costs the system money - ATMs exist because they're cheaper than human tellers, the lightposts can use more energy-efficient bulbs, etc etc. None of these are explicitly designed to burn power.

On the other hand, if you add mining power to the pool, it makes it harder to get hashes, using more power. Bitcoin is regressive in its power usages. The traditional system does not actively set out to use more power. While due to inertia it may not make active strides to reduce it, but that's not the point here. It's not by design like Bitcoin is.

> Also, energy is a resource like any other and it's generation and price is subject to supply/demand

Actually most municipalities treat electricity like they treat water, more akin to a public utility. The actual cost isn't necessarily related to supply/demand.

Normally this isn't a big deal as historically the electricity use either was minor (homes) or lead to economic growth (businesses) similarly most businesses would make specific deals if they had heavy use.

Now Bitcoin threw a curve ball by allowing electricity -> money in a system not designed to make the cost of electricity support it.

Yes the fundamental idea of Bitcoin is great but the current external cost to support the "investment market" is quite high.

I mostly agree, except that the fundamental idea is bad because it inevitably leads to an arms race between miners. Using more electricity gives you a bigger share of the pie, but doesn’t actually grow the pie. So the electricity is really wasted. And this at a time when our energy demand is contributing to climate change.

> Bitcoin network can work the same way using 10% of its current electricity consumption.

Except by design, bitcoin miners are incentivized to consume more energy the higher the price goes. If they don't consume as much energy as they possibly can, their mining pool will have less of a chance to get that sweet, sweet block reward (....to convert back into an actual currency in order to, you know, pay their bills and stuff....)

> Also, lightning network will allow for thousand times more transactions with same energy cost.

If the solution to bitcoin's horrific energy consumption is to not use bitcoin.... what is the point of bitcoin?

> The fact, that is is used on mining bitcoins just indicate, that people value bitcoin technology more than something else they would spend the electricity on.

It is valued as a speculative asset and an excellent way to launder ill-gotten money. It's only use is for scams. Bitcoin generates a massive negative externality in that it drives up the costs of electricity for all the people who are doing actual productive things with it.

The whole thing is a abhorrent waste and supporters like yourself should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves for defending it (using some of the most paper-thin arguments, I might add...).

> If the solution to bitcoin's horrific energy consumption is to not use bitcoin.... what is the point of bitcoin?

The lightning network IS Bitcoin, just as using HTTP over TCP is using TCP.

> The whole thing is a abhorrent waste and supporters like yourself should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves for defending it.

It's the only way to survive economically in repressive states.

> The lightning network IS Bitcoin, just as using HTTP over TCP is using TCP.

So its got a decentralized, distributed public ledger recording every transaction made? Since when did that happen?

> It's the only way to survive economically in repressive states.

LOL. No. You use USD.... No citizens in economically repressive states are gonna flip to bitcoin. Not when it gets 4 transactions per second tops. Not when you have to purchase your currency from early adopters in order to participate. Not when you can lose your entire savings by simply exposing your computer to the internet.

Sorry man. You fell for a scam.

> So its got a decentralized, distributed public ledger recording every transaction made? Since when did that happen?

No, that's not how it works. Participants can go on-chain with their transactions only if needed.

> LOL. No. You use USD.... No citizens in economically repressive states are gonna flip to bitcoin

Repressive states make it difficult to get USD.

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/04/03/...

> Not when it gets 4 transactions per second tops.

Again, read up on second-layer scaling.

> Not when you have to purchase your currency from early adopters in order to participate.

Why would that be a problem? Also you can mine it yourself.

> Not when you can lose your entire savings by simply exposing your computer to the internet.

There are may solutions for storing your deposits securely, hardware wallets being one.

> Sorry man. You fell for a scam.

Everybody who tells me that knows very little about Bitcoin

> Again, read up on second-layer scaling.

As in "not using the blockchain" otherwise known as "not using bitcoin".

Lightning Network wouldn't even need to exist if Bitcoin was actually good at what it did.

Speaking of, when will I be able to use LN to purchase a cup of coffee from Starbucks?

> Also you can mine it yourself.

Yes. By "mine it yourself" you mean "burn more money on electric and hardware than the value of the bitcoin mined"? Cause last I checked the days of individuals being able to profitably mine bitcoin at home are long gone.

> There are may solutions for storing your deposits securely, hardware wallets being one.

So in addition to buying their Bitcoin from early adopters, these poor repressed people will also need to purchase an expensive (for them) hardware wallet and then learn to use it? What if that hardware wallet gets lost or stolen? What if they forget the key? What if the owner passes on and the children need to access the wealth? How does inheritance work?

> Everybody who tells me that knows very little about Bitcoin

Bitcoin users are an intersection of people who don't understand finance, economics, politics, computer science, monetary policy, legislation, regulation, socioeconomics, math, or seemingly life itself.... It's borderline willful ignorance.

> As in "not using the blockchain" otherwise known as "not using bitcoin".

You don't understand Bitcoin

> Cause last I checked the days of individuals being able to profitably mine bitcoin at home are long gone.

You don't understand Bitcoin https://powercompare.co.uk/bitcoin-electricity-cost/

> What if that hardware wallet gets lost or stolen? What if they forget the key?

You don't understand Bitcoin or the concept of backups

The world's banking system is at around 500 Billion transactions per year https://www.worldpaymentsreport.com/reports/noncash while bitcoin has a mere 200 thousand per day https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions Even if the banking system (not sure why you include commuters, but then we should also include bitcoin lambos) were to consume the same amount of power it would still handle 2.5 million times (edit: >6000 times) as many transactions.

Note that 200,000 transactions per day equals 63 million transactions per year. It’s hard to compare figures if the units are different.

oh, sorry. my mistake. still something like 6000 times more transactions than bitcoin.

To multiply your mistake, those Bitcoin transactions in the chart can be multiparty transactions, where, for example, a store issues all the daily refunds to its customers in a single transaction. Basically, a better metric is needed.

Also, lightning network needs to be taken into consideration. But does anyone have exact stats for that?