• Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why is commercial power so cheap and residential so expensive? We could fix two problems by balancing that back.

      • Nighed@sffa.community
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

  • wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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

      • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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…

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Oh not this again.

          Crypto is also fiat. It’s backed by nothing except the trust that it exists, therefore it’s fiat.

    • maness300@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s a drop in the ocean compared to how much energy the banking industry uses.

      • clgoh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        The banking industry uses at least 50x more, right?

        • Snekeyes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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

          • clgoh@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            A system used by everybody, and a system still used by a tiny fraction of the population are using a comparable amount of energy?

  • TypicalHog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s why I prefer Cardano, it has a good PoS (unlike Ethereum) and uses thousands of time less energy than Bitcoin.

  • doylio@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I’ve always found this argument against crypto to be a bad one. The headline will say something like “Crypto mining uses XYZ total energy” and we’re supposed to infer that this means crypto is polluting a lot. But it doesn’t say how much pollution there actually was. For economic reasons, these miners often use cheap excess energy that would have been produced anyway or green tech. Not all of it obviously, but that level of nuance is missing.

    Also, we don’t make the same moral arguments against other energy uses. Air conditioners use more energy than Bitcoin mining does, but we don’t go around saying the government should ban people from using AC.

    There are legitimate problems with crypto, but this one never convinced me

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Air conditioning literally saves lives, especially medically vulnerable people, the hell are you on about?

      As others have pointed out, ~2% of the entire US’s energy output is absolutely insane. According to the eia.gov, the US produced around 100 quadrillion BTUs worth of energy in 2022 (I don’t fully know why they chose BTUs to measure the total energy output, they explain on the website, but that’s besides the point). 2% of that is 2 quadrillion BTUs. According to psu.edu (I googled these sites on my laptop so don’t have exact urls on my phone at the moment), the entirety of US households in 2017 used 4.58 quadrillion BTUs.

      Think about that. Bitcoin/PoW coin miners are using enough electricity to power around half of all homes in the US. According to statista.com, in 2022 there were 144 million homes. These miners consume 72 million homes worth of energy. And for what? To solve math problems that benefits no one but Bitcoin/PoW coin investors?

      We’re literally seeing our weather patterns become more and more extreme every year due to climate change, which is also killing our oceans which is causing a severely negative chain reaction in the rest of our ecosystems… But, you know, fuck all that, I need to use an extremely inefficient method of generating currency that no one but enthusiasts/speculators/investors asked for. I’m not inherently against cryptocurrency; however, fuck Bitcoin and other extremely wasteful PoW coins.

      And yes, printing dollar bills/other fiat currencies creates pollution, too. I agree that process should be modernized as well. And in some ways, it already has been undergoing modernization as more and more people use electronic payments vs cash, thus decreasing the need to print more bills.

    • zergtoshi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s a lot of energy for a global (!) maximum of around 7 transactions per second.
      Unless you want to use the replica of traditional finance called Lightning Network. Then you have more transactions per second and a whole new set of drawbacks.

      • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        Holy shit. 7 transactions a second is horrible and pretty much definitively proves (to me) that it’s not currently used as a currency

        By chance, do you have a source for that or know where I would go looking?

        • ililiililiililiilili@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Because the max blocksize of BTC is heavily crippled, max transactions per block is around 3,500ish. That puts us at about 500k transactions max per day (1 block every 10 min). So divide 500k by how many seconds are in a day (86,400) and you get slightly under 6 TPS. Whoever came up with 7 TPS probably did more accurate math than me.

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Different transactions use different amounts of space so it’s always going to be a rough estimate.

  • darthfabulous42069@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    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?

    • Snekeyes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Vs. Banks. That have offices, branches, atms, data centers… banking does use more energy yearly. So why not both invest in renewables

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • pirat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      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”.

  • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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 10 9 coins in market cap, Bitcoin is the only one using proof of work, which demands such high energy requirements.

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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?

          • FaceDeer@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    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.

    • WallEx@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      More like fuck crypto mining. There are cryptos that dont need mining.

      • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        LOL wake me up when you’re circulating currency instead of just speculating against the bag holders.

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              You think that there are only two possible uses for these things, and if I’m not interested in one of them I must therefore be using it for the other? Pretty weak logic.

              • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 months ago

                You keep saying there are lots of uses, but you haven’t listed a single one

                I don’t want you to feel bad for being a fan of crypto, but passionately (and incorrectly) defending it just makes you seem like a shill (or worse, a fool)

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Heh. I bet if I had been suggesting particular uses you’d be calling me a shill for those particular uses. “Shill” is such a lazy accusation to throw about, you can sling it at anyone who’s interested in anything.

                  How about ENS? It’s a decentralized version of the Domain Name System.

      • Wodge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Crypto isn’t a currency, it’s a commodity for trading. One that doesn’t physically exist. No inherent use and no inherent value.

        • S410@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • darthelmet@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            But this is actually why crypto isn’t a real currency: we haven’t collectively agreed to value it, or at least not in any way that makes it useful as a medium for exchange. Ironically it can’t possibly become a proper currency while speculators are making its price so volatile. The very act of investing in it is making it worthless.

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • S410@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • honey_im_meat_grinding@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                In the EU they’re getting a digital euro which allows them to avoid bowing down to Paypal, Payoneer, and all the services interlinked with them (e.g. Patreon) - the ancillary services can even offer digital euro payouts instead, too. So as long as what you’re doing is legal, you can break the Paypal/Payoneer terms of service as much as you want and avoid their privately enforced authoritarianism that goes beyond the scope of the law for whatever reason. So those problems are being solved as we speak, depending on where you live.

                • S410@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  The “Criticism and risks of the digital euro” section on Wikipedia outlines my concerns about such a system pretty well.

                  Unless they are going to implement a cryptocurrency with centralized minting (essentially giving themselves both as much and as little control over the digital currency as they have over physically printed money), it doesn’t seem that much different from what we have already. Just because it’s going to be a new system, doesn’t really mean it not going to have issues with false-positives suspending regular transactions or fees that are higher than they need to be.

        • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          You literally just defined the attributes of a currency. The only difference is that crypto isn’t backed by a government.

          Edited. See below. Apparently some crypto is government backed. There is no functional difference between traditional currency and (at least some) crypto.