Comment by yladiz | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yladiz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I'm very conflicted about this. On one hand, I have a little bit of Bitcoin and am happy about some of the gains I've gotten (not life changing in any sense, but more than I expected). On the other hand I hesitated for a long time to buy any because I knew of the large environmental impact that its energy use has (yes, I really did avoid buying Bitcoin for a long time because I roughly knew of the environmental/energy costs). It's hard to reconcile these two positions in my mind, and part of me feels like this is a "tragedy of the commons" situation where it's fine if I have some because everyone else has some as well and I won't impact anything by _not_ having some.

Curious what HNers think about this - is it bad to have Bitcoin in light of how bad the environmental impact is, especially with analysis about the taxes/cost/impact like this? Or is not participating really not reducing the impact of this in any meaningful way so you're kind of only losing if you don't?

I'm of the mind that the government shouldn't be regulating how resources are used. It makes sense to me to regulate the manufacturing of resources - for example regulating pollution levels, dumping, etc. - but once you have a resource the market should decide how that resource should be put to use.

If we've decided that we're happy producing X much electricity as a society using nuclear, wind, solar, coal, etc, we shouldn't get caught up on who ends up using that electricity or what they are willing to pay for it.

If we think that the energy we are producing is harmful, we should regulate things at the production level. Ban power production that doesn't meet certain standards, put a cap on the total amount of coal burning per year, etc. And then let the market decide the best use for the energy that remains.

Bitcoin is unique in that anyone with a power outlet and internet connection can plug hardware in and start converting energy to Bitcoin.

Bitcoin mining was a problem in college dorms for a while because students used their “free” electricity and cooling to pay for new video cards. Many landlords had to abandon “utilities included” rents when they were hit with the first $500 electric bill. IT administrators have stories of catching people trying to hide mining equipment in closets or under their desks.

But coiners are trying to get ahead of the narrative by planting articles about how mining is actually powered by hydro dams in Mongolia. Not only is this not true, but it would be quite a problem if the mining had become so massively centralized.

But it is true, about 75% of all electricity used in bitcoin mining is sourced from renewables. And the vast majority of bitcoin mining is large professional farms, not people using free electricity in their dorms. Bitcoin has been dominated by professionals since 2014.

https://www.vox.com/2019/6/18/18642645/bitcoin-energy-price-...

You might be interested in Proof of Stake based blockchains then. They don't require the crazy electricity. Check out Ethereum, Polkadot, and Cardano.

I personally shy away from investing in Bitcoin in favor of those.

Bitcoin also does not provide any mechanism for "smart contracts" either so it has even less utility in my mind.

> Curious what HNers think about this - is it bad to have Bitcoin in light of how bad the environmental impact is

Having them actually has no or negligible impact. Unfortunately getting rid of them is a transaction which will incur an unreasonable cost to the environment. The best thing might be to destroy them (the media they're stored on). And no, nobody expects you to do so.

I'd would sell them before they get banned, as they must.

don't you think you make life a bit too hard for yourself?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com