You must log in or register to comment.
Electricity is too cheap for these uses.
Why is commercial power so cheap and residential so expensive? We could fix two problems by balancing that back.
Because companies > people in the eyes of the state.
It depends on which state, which is even more sad.
Something something job creators….something something trickle down
It’s more like companies = jobs in the eyes of voters.
ETA: What’s with the downvotes? You guys think this is wrong?
I have never once gave a flying fuck about a nebulous concept of “jobs.”
Sounds like you are in a very good position to appreciate how the average voter feels about this.
ETA: I think we’d all be better off if people had a more realistic and practical attitude to jobs.
My understanding is tha some commercial/industrial users will get a highly variable tariff. This may be cheaper much of the time, but can get ridiculously expensive at times of high demand.
The difference is that a bitcoin farmer can shut down at those expensive times, but a home user still needs to heat/cool their house, run their fridge etc, so the savings cancel out. Because of this, averaging the costs works out easier/better for most home consumers
You can get time of use billing at home with many power companies. Only makes sense if you have solar panels or storage batteries or some such.
I have real time pricing from my utility. It works out well because we charge 2 electric cars overnight for a fraction of what they would cost to charge at the standard fixed kilowatt-hour rate. My house is heated by natural gas; I don’t think the savings would be there if I also was heating my house with electricity as I live in the midwest, where it gets cold as fuck for the winter.
My Volt (and I assume other EVs) has a setting to charge when power is cheaper.
They don’t produce anything except some numbers. A total waste of energy. I had to laugh when this guy I know who is very “progressive” and environmentally concerned got pissy when I pointed out how much energy was wasted on bitcoin mining just because he was into it.
My comment here is a much better use of energy
Recording my next fart would be a better use of energy than Bitcoin.
My lower-down comment is an even better use of energy
You should check out the impact of gold production also.
fuck crypto shit ffs
More like fuck crypto mining. There are cryptos that dont need mining.
If there’s no demand for a particular crypto then people mining it can’t sell it and go out of business. People mine this stuff because other people will pay them for it.
Good job, totally missed my point.
You can buy/sell ones that arent dependend on mining. Not every crypto is the same.
Ah, you’re referring to non-proof-of-work chains. There’s no need to be snarky, your comment could be interpreted in multiple ways.
You’re right, sorry, wrong destination
No problem.
Which ones? I’m curious since I don’t follow the scene and only know of mainstream stuff.
Beats me, I’m only interested in the technology :D Chia was plotted and not mined I think, but other then that …
This is as useless as saying “fuck currency shit ffs”.
Crypto isn’t a currency, it’s a commodity for trading. One that doesn’t physically exist. No inherent use and no inherent value.
The vast majority of “real” currencies are fiat currencies and don’t have inherent value or use either.
US dollar hasn’t been backed by gold since 1971, for example.
The only reason money has any perceived value at all, is because it’s collectively agreed to have some value. Just like crypto currencies.But there’s so few uses of actually buying things with crypto. People don’t use it as a medium of exchange outside of illicit goods and money laundering. We’re more than a decade into this and using crypto to buy a pizza is still a novelty.
A major proof of this is that FTX collapsed and took a chunk of the crypto market out with it. The market at large shrugged this off. If it were actually linked in to the broader economy, then it would have had similar ripple effects to a major US bank failing.
I, personally, use crypto to do art commissions (I’m an artist) and to pay my VPS’s rent. Neither is an illicit good or related to money laundering.
And, honesty, it’s pretty great, compared to alternatives.
Last time I’ve used PayPal, it decided to withhold the funds for a month, for whatever reason. Plus, the transaction fee was about a dollar.
Transferring the same amount of money via Monero is guaranteed take only about a minute or two to process, since a transaction in that system would never get withhold, plus the processing fee would be about a hundred times smaller.
JFC how long do we have to wait for a carbon tax
deleted by creator
That’s. That’s the whole point. Things costing their true value.
Business exist to make money (even non profits need to make enough money from either sales or donations to cover operating costs). If something costs them more, it’s going to cost their customers more. This way negative externalities aren’t swept away to become an unmanageable problem in the future. The true cost of consumption is reflected in the price we pay.
What you’re describing as a bad thing is really the system working for good, as it was intended.
Unfortunately they are correct as the carbon tax in Canada is indeed a racket. It’s only on consumer consumption.
- oil exports, our largest source of emissions, are exempt
- agriculture and forestry, the next largest, also exempt
- shipping and rail, oh look, exempt
- heavy industry can buy phoney carbon credits for $5/ton instead of paying the $65/ton tax. Some of these are for forests that have already burned down
- oh yeah the greatest emission source last year, dwarfing all others, 80% of our total emissions came from the massive forest fires for which our policy is just to LET THEM BURN
So the only people who carry the burden of the Canadian carbon tax are the ordinary taxpayers. But hey, the optics are good! Looks very progressive. Despite the fact that Canadian consumer consumption is the definition of a drop in the bucket that is global emissions.
If Canada wanted to make a difference they would nationalize the grid, build nuclear and renewables. Or forget it all for now and just put out the damn fires!
Edit: I forgot one more, as imports are not taxed, the carbon tax actually encourages the import of goods made with coal power in China, over goods made with hydropower in Canada!
Removed by mod
I believe it was a CBC article last fall that mentioned it, talking about the massive rise in acres burned from previous years. But I can’t directly give you a link at this time unfortunately, am on mobile and can’t find it either.
Removed by mod
Not made up, but estimated. Rather than find the exact article, here are the numbers after all was said and done:
In 2021, Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 670 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (couldn’t find 2023 quickly on mobile but it will be close)
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-canada-produced-23-global-wildfire-carbon-emissions-2023
The wildfires that Canada experienced during 2023 have generated the highest carbon emissions in record for this country by a wide margin. According to GFASv1.2 data, the wildfires that started to take place in early May emitted almost 480 megatonnes of carbon
470 / 670 = 72%
To be fair this is not 72% of total emissions including wildfire smoke, but wildfires emitted 72% as much as the Canadian economy did.
So yes, it’s not 80% of total emissions - but it’s still a massive amount. Putting out these fires would have had nearly the same effect as shutting down our entire country and letting them burn.
Or you could say letting them burn nearly doubled our emissions, and in the hand-wavey world of emissions accounting you would be pretty close.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
It means for every $10 he gets charged, he’s paying $3 for stuff like gst, carbon tax, etc. $7 is for the actual gas or whatever he is consuming.
And you get CAIP now, which, for most Canadians, especially lower income Canadians, CAIP is greater than the additional cost you pay for goods and services due to the carbon tax.
The carbon tax is quite literally a tax on the rich that gets given to the poor, while at the same time making high carbon intensity products more expensive incentivizing choices that lower carbon emissions.
Only the very rich lose.
The people who speak out against it, are either rich, or they are useful idiots, people who are ignorantly shilling to scrap the tax to their own detriment because they were told by their rich tribe leader it’s bad.
Which one are you?
I love how downvoted you are and how many people can see through this BS.
That sucks. It’s not like climate change is everybody’s problem.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The tax will just be the cost of doing business. But surely “tHe MarKeT” will correct this by finding cheaper non carbon transport sell a cheaper product.
Personally I support tax of fossile and subsidization of alternatives. Worked like a charm to electrify Norways car park.
The cons are however that increased demand for electricity means building wind, hydro, solar power, with a huge cost to local environent both in most land and the diesel used by construction euipment
There’s still market incentive for reducing emissions. Either lets you charge the same and for higher margins, or reduce prices and be more appealing to consumers.
deleted by creator
Hey, just because companies always choose (and get away with) “make more money by cutting costs” instead of “attract more customers with lower prices” doesn’t mean they have to …right?
When has there been a carbon tax in recent years?
deleted by creator
What does the government do with all the extra revenue? Theoretically it should be able to reduce other taxes proportionally so that those with low carbon usage come out ahead instead of just being a negative for everyone.
Yup, the Climate Action Incentive is a Pigouvian tax, so the government estimates the revenues, divides that up to comes up with a number for each resident, and we receive it back in quarterly payments.
Any suggestions on how we can actually make corporations pay for the carbon they emit if a carbon tax isn’t it?
Doing nothing is what we have been doing and it isn’t working.deleted by creator
How would you implement that? Like, how do you propose to impose a tax on the company that they can’t just pass along to the customer?
deleted by creator
How would that law work? Unless you’re setting the price as a matter of law, how could you ever prove that a price rise was because of the tax and not “other economic factors”?
deleted by creator
There is no good reason why this isn’t illegal.
Not a good reason, but money.
Not even real money, tech bro phantom bullshit.
The tech bros are convincing stupid people it is real money though. Just like they always have, whether it’s this or something else.
Crypto is the digital coal of our times.
deleted by creator
With the disadvantage of large stakeholders dominating the network and undermining the decentralization.
Which is just as true with mining, except money is staked into mining rigs.
It’s actually more true for proof-of-work mining than it is for proof-of-stake. PoW mining has strong economies of scale, a professional miner with a warehouse full of mining rigs and a special deal with an industrial electricity supplier can churn out hashes more cheaply than a home miner can. Whereas the hardware needed for PoS is negligible so there’s nowhere near that disparity between small and large miners.
Also, under Ethereum at least (the largest proof-of-stake chain and the one I’m most familiar with the workings of), stakers don’t “dominate” the network. They have no decision-making power over what the consensus rules are. If the users decide to upgrade to a new version and the stakers refuse to go along with that or try to push an upgrade that the users don’t want then those stakers lose their stake after the resulting fork.
deleted by creator
I went Googling for sources, and what I found says the opposite. Ethereum was becoming increasingly centralized under PoW but after the switch to PoS it became significantly more decentralized.
in order to stake to a pool, you need to lock your tokens away, making them impossible to spend for a specified time period.
This is exactly the point of proof-of-stake. You can’t prove you’ve staked some coins if you don’t actually stake them. If you’ve retained control over your tokens then they’re not staked. I’m not sure how you think it could work otherwise.
most of the criticisms I have of ETH are more damming of the way they went about the transition between two radically different consensus algorithms than about Proof of Stake itself.
The transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake has been on Ethereum’s roadmap since the beginning. It was rolled out in stages over the course of years. What was “damning” about the transition?
This is exactly the point of proof-of-stake. You can’t prove you’ve staked some coins if you don’t actually stake them. If you’ve retained control over your tokens then they’re not staked. I’m not sure how you think it could work otherwise.
WOW. Straight up wrong.
I’m guessing you have a YUGE bag of ETH staked. 🤣
Since you’re so wrong, it’s clear that you are absolutely guessing here while anon is spitting facts, being intellectually honest about which drawbacks actually exist in the world for proof of stake. Take the L, dude. haha
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I don’t defend anything - I simply do not consider the existing crypto assets as an alternative to currencies at all. They are still so far from being reliable or stable to be a good means of general exchange. They have their place in the area of investment and speculation and that works fine for me.
How about stabletokens, many of which are pegged directly to the value of the USD?
Primecoin wants to have a word having done useful PoW for over a decade.
deleted by creator
Prime numbers are searched for doing the PoW. The blockchain essentially contains a data base with prime numbers. As far as I can tell Primecoin never was popular,.but I like the novel approach of doing things, when most cryptocurrencies of that time were lame copies.
Btw. the Primecoin creator made Peercoin, which was afaik the first (and apparently still running) network being secured by Proof-of-Stake.deleted by creator
Hybrid pow/pos has been worked on since the beginning. Peercoin is still alive.
Whoever Satoshi was, I wonder how he’s responding to the thought that he’s personally contributed more to global warming than the average billionaire.
Satoshi is estimated to have wallets totaling as much as 1.1 million btc. That would make them the 26th richest person in the world.
If, Satoshi and the wallets actually still exist. Most of those wallets have been completely idle since they were mined
I imagine that “Satoshi’s Wallet” is the stuff of legends among cryptographic security researchers.
The ONE PIECE is real /s
It’s a bit more than just an estimate. If you want to know more, have a look here: https://bitslog.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/
The keys to the addresses exist. Whether someone is in control of them is unclear. It can’t be proven that they’ve been lost.Ok I was kind of dumbing it down when I said “if the wallet exists”, but yeah, obviously a wallet and key “exist”, but whether or not anyone actually has them is unknown.
Really sucks for Satoshi, too. If the keys are still in someone’s position, they can’t use it, because people are watching those wallets like hawks and if they move, that means there’s a new billionaire. For a brief moment. Until Bitcoin takes a massive nosedive from which it’ll never recover.
That must be some special kind of hell. To be an actual billionaire (and truly of their own making, which is even more rare) but not able to spend a cent of it. Spending it instantly reduces its value and likely kills the very thing that created it. Man, that’s like a Monkeys Paw billionaire.
Probably not thinking about it on his yacht that he doesn’t pilot or maintain, having built the most successful grifter scheme of all time
I feel like calling bitcoin a grifter scheme is kind of like calling fiat currency (edit: in general) a grifter scheme. Which I guess isn’t entirely untrue…
Oh not this again.
Crypto is also fiat. It’s backed by nothing except the trust that it exists, therefore it’s fiat.
That’s my point. Sorry, I should have said “fiat in general”.
no, the US dollar is backed by the fact that you can use it to pay your taxes to the US government, and interact with the US government in general, quite literally backed by more than crypto.
and I hate to break it to you, but all currency, ever, is fiat.
all that gold standard stuff? you just abstracted the fiat nature from the money to the metal, there was never any actual basis for the value of gold outside its value, and there are plenty of more sparse metals that people don’t value as highly
👍
It’s a drop in the ocean compared to how much energy the banking industry uses.
Watch out! Lemmy is full of Fudd that are not part of the cult. You need actual data to convince them and not even just the comparison of 2 numbers but something that takes into account the comparative size of both industries.
Don’t worry, you will be able to laugh at them after your gambling addiction pays up.
(Jk you might not even be a line goes up guy but you do seem to have a lot of the crypto bible memorized)
I can’t tell if these crypto people (comparing the energy use of banking to Bitcoin) are dumb, or if they think everyone else is.
Yes.
Banks use negligible electricity lmao
Yeah. 600k Branches, 1 million atms, data centers…
Including everything, about a million times less energy per transaction than crypto.
yup, tho they also serve more people than crypto bros, about 100,000 times as many
the banking industry
Might want to brush up on that reading comprehension.
I think this is the most forced ‘lmao’ I have ever read
The banking industry uses at least 50x more, right?
Lets talk about the bank branchs, data centers, and energy consumption vs crypto.
"Research has found that bitcoin miners alone consume approximately between 60 to 125 TWh of energy annually, which is equivalent to around 0.6% of global electricity
“Traditional banks’ total annual energy consumption of traditional banks is around 26 TWh on running servers, 26 TWh on ATMs, and 87 TWh from an estimate of 600k+ branches worldwide. Totaling 139 TWh.”
Not to mention banks impact on people’s lives. Limited purchasing power of the poor and soon to join them middle class… to purchase disposable products. Like the old tale of buying a expensive boot vs a cheap one.
I’m all for less power usage … but seems like a witch hunt compared to what banking gets away w. It’s the the first time banks can point the finger at someone other then themselves.
https://www.iyops.org/post/energy-consumption-cryptocurrency-vs-traditional-banks
A system used by everybody, and a system still used by a tiny fraction of the population are using a comparable amount of energy?
hey, most of the crypto fans are all temporarily embarrassed billionaire libertarians anyway, so the bottom 99.5% can all eat shit and die
So it’s okay for crypto to consume more energy than banks because… Banks somehow limit the purchasing power of the poor?
I don’t think I’m understanding your argument.
You’d think with all of the money they’re pulling in, they’d invest in solar panels or something to lower their overhead.
Or am I making the mistake of approaching the situation with common sense?
It’s Bitcoin, of course common sense isn’t involved.
I mean, fair, but still. People should push them to go green.
Solar panels give about 100 watts per square meters best case, practically you’ll be on half of that… With the amounts of electricity they use, they’ll need to cover entire nature reserves with solar panels to feed their miners. It’s simply not practical
Solar panels can have more than 200 watts peak per square meter and provide around 200 kWh per year and square meter, although these values vary a lot depending on where the panels are installed.
Given these numbers, generating 200 TWh annually (which is more than the current electric energy consumption of Bitcoin mining devices) would require 10^9 square meters; that’s slightly more than 31 square kilometers.
Don’t misunderstand this as defending the electric energy consumption of Bitcoin mining! I’d rather see this electric energy being used elsewhere.
I merely wanted to show how much electric energy can be harvested using solar panels.They’d still need some type of battery to make solar work though. They want to mine 24/7.
Wind turbines? Solar thermal? Nuclear in exchange for all of those Bitcoins, perhaps?
Maybe pay off would be so far into the future that they don’t want to risk it? Who knows how long crypto will be a thing.
You can get solar panels for like $100-$200 on Amazon right now. Nice ones. The price of them dropped like a fucking rock since China got involved.
With how volatile the value of Bitcoin is I don’t know whether or not they feel safe trying to take that money and reinvest it you’re walking by one of the coin ATMs that’s at one of my local stores I’ve watched the value of Bitcoin halve its value than double it overnight basically every single day for the last 3 weeks
Vs. Banks. That have offices, branches, atms, data centers… banking does use more energy yearly. So why not both invest in renewables
Sure, but how much of the global financial market does crypto represent?
I susptect that the energy consomption per transaction is considerably higher for crypto than for a normal financial transaction.
no, it is exorbitantly higher for a single crypto transaction
I did find some information about this, and have posted about it in the thread, and you are absolutely right about this in regards to Bitcoin, I did not find a lot of information about other crypto apart from Etherium, which claimed that the energy use of one Etherium transaction would not consume any power at all, which I doubt.
Ethereum uses proof-of-stake, there is no “mining” in a traditional sense, so its power consumption is more akin to e-mail than mining crypto. But proof-of-stake leads to centralization over time, which is antithetical to what Bitcoin people want.
I agree with you. That still means Bitcoin is on the hook though.
Modern day gold rush.
Digging up more and more dirt for diminishing returns while destroying the environment.
Bitcoin using more and more power for essentially the same.
Misleading title - the problem is not “crypto”, it’s pretty much all Bitcoin and the people against the change in the consensus mechanism. Out of the top
109 coins in market cap, Bitcoin is the only one using proof of work, which demands such high energy requirements.dogecoin is top10
ah yes the 10th place - still, Doge is estimated to use ~1% of the energy Bitcoin uses and it’s been in steady decline since the meme blew up.
>it’s been in steady decline since the meme blew up.
it got a pretty big bump from elon a couple years back, but dogecoin is nearly perfect money. it isn’t deflationary, it’s cheap to transact, and the on-ramps are ubiquitous.
the entire Bitcoin block chain could be run on the phone I’m using to write this. there is nothing inherent to the protocol that dictates such massive power use.
and dogecoin merge mines with all the other script coins so how can you even calculate its independent usage?
there is nothing inherent to the protocol that dictates such massive power use.
Yes there is, massive power use is the entire point of proof-of-work. If Bitcoin blocks could be produced without massive power use then the blockchain’s system of validation would fail and 51% attacks would be trivial.
the hash rate for the first blocks was achievable with a pentium 3. the protocol functioned then. there is nothing inherent to the protocol that dictates more hashpower is used. a 51% attack is the protocol functioning properly.
That’s because there were just a handful of people mining the first blocks and there was no demand, so the price was basically zero.
The protocol is meant to promote decentralization, so I have no idea how a 51% attack would be an example of the protocol functioning properly. A 51% attack is a demonstration that the protocol is controlled by a single entity.
a 51% attack means that 51% of the hashpower has agreed on a certain chain. this happens every 10 minutes.
idk their methodology - source
if they don’t explain their methodology, there is no reason to believe they got it right
then there’s no reason to believe they got it wrong.
also they’re vague estimates, even bitcoin has a huge margin for error.
there is every reason to not believe them. they clearly have a motivation to paint power consumption as worse than is true, and the complexity of extracting the use of dogecoin mining from the rest of the mergedmine is, personally, unfathomable. maybe i’m dumb and there is a simple calculation that can be done, but without evidence of their methodology, i’m not going to believe them, and no one should.
two of the top 10 by market cap ar stable coins.
what’s your point?
that market cap is a dumb metric to use to dictate protocol specifications
wtf are you even talking about? What protocol specs? Who’s dictating what?
the specifications of the bitcoin protocol require proof of work. using the market cap to dictate what the protocol specification should be is absurd.
and who’s proposing that? I picked the top in market cap to illustrate what most relevant coins are doing because most of them are irrelevant shitcoins.
seems like you undrestand that market cap is irrelevant to the protocol design.
Want to suggest a better one?
uh… adoption, stability, code commits, forks…
Isn’t it strange no one gave a shit about this a year and a half ago when the price was lower? It appears everyone’s concern for the environment and energy consumption only increases when the price goes up. Interesting correlation or may be causation.
Everyone already gave a shit about this a long time ago. It’s also one of the reasons Ethereum switched from proof of work to proof of stake.
Yes but only when the price was high did anyone care and ethereum switch. Barely a peep for the last 2 and a half years
I’ve been hearing about the stupid amount of energy usage for years and years. You just created a straw man that isn’t based on reality.
I’ve been keeping a close eye on the news about crypto and there has been virtually no stories about any crypto for the last 2 years, prior to that when the price was high there were a lot of stories about it which is my point. They only started to come back into circulation about 6 months ago. If you remember otherwise you are wrong.
deleted by creator
can always just pump up more oil out of the ground.
No, this is actually exactly the fucking problem
deleted by creator
I have some bad news for you about the environmental effects of burning lots of oil
They’re a crypto bro. They probably think they’ll live on a swimming libertarian island by then.
As long as there’s enough for your remaining lifetime that’s fine. We don’t have to worry about anyone else’s lifetime after that.
deleted by creator
I think you’re telling on yourself
deleted by creator
You mean proof of work? And I disagree, Ethereum moved from PoW to PoS and gained market cap since then. The high costs are just a consequence of the consensus mechanism in use.
bitcoin has got to be invented by an alien or something so that we would terraform for them…
Probably just a fool thinking free fusion energy was just around the corner
It’s more that it was originally a theoretical white paper meant to present a potential solution for a very specific problem space. Energy use wasn’t a consideration in the design, because that wasn’t part of what it was meant to address. Likewise, anonymity in the sense of hiding transactions wasn’t part of the design either, besides avoiding centralized banking’s requirement that every “wallet” is associated with a government ID.
It was a fun toy meant as a proof of concept solution to centralized banking.
Eventually market speculators saw what the nerds were getting up to, got some ideas, and everything freaking exploded. It wasn’t meant to drive speculative markets.
Ultimately, mining should be banned from the surface of Earth. Let miners build orbital solar panel infrastructure close to the Sun where power is plentiful. See Bitcoin developer Peter Todd’s 2017-09-10 presentation on the subject (transcript).
Edit: Fixed URL. Edit2; Add transcript link.
Don’t forget the opportunity cost of achieving orbital velocity.
I’d say ban it but the cat is out of the bag. Tax it and provide alternatives and hopefully it will die.
dude you can totally ban it, it’s not even difficult, you just don’t let them suck up infinite power
Mineral resource mining as well
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Peter Todd’s 2017-09-10 presentation on the subject
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Wait till you find out how much energy banking uses…
Per transaction?
How much? How much of total US power is used by banks? You have a number, right?
Banks will use progressively less energy per capita as bulk data processing becomes more energy efficient, assuming they donʼt transition to using proof-of-work.
Destroying the environment and not even for real money
What makes it less real than other fiat currencies, if I may ask? If a currency is agreed upon being valid by multiple parties, I’d argue it is “real money”.
It’s a speculative asset, based on the bigger fool theory. You need to sell it for real money to pay your taxes.
If a currency is agreed upon being valid by multiple parties, I’d argue it is “real money”.
That right there. The vast, vast majority of people don’t think it’s valid, therefore it’s not real money.
deleted by creator
That’s why I prefer Cardano, it has a good PoS (unlike Ethereum) and uses thousands of time less energy than Bitcoin.
And father.
