Ok, but “the amount of electricity used by the State of Washington” isn’t exactly a reliable metric. Like… it’s not a quantity people can easily hold in their minds and compare to other things. To pretty much everyone, it’s meaningless without a rather large amount of contextualization. Even this silly article fails to enumerate how much power is being used, how much power Washington State produces, or what percentage of Washington State’s power supply is consumed by crypto mining. 
this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
114 points (92.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7217 readers
439 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
washington has 7.8 million people and consumed 750,773 megawatt hours in 2022 https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/washington/
Crypto mining globally uses more power than the country of Denmark.
What abouy our broken banking system?
Now do traditional finance (spoiler its magnitudes higher energy usage)
While I don't know the numbers, I'd guess that traditional financial systems all together probably are processing orders if magnitudes more transactions. So while a pure total energy consumption comparison is one thing it would be interesting to conpare energy consumption on a few different factors:
- total energy consumption
- energy consumption per transaction
- energy consumption per user
- energy consumption per $ amount transacted
Not saying traditional finance would come out on top, I'm legitimately curious
Yes, and you hit a key component here. The amount of energy required to process transactions in bitcoin remains the same no matter how much it scales (this is algorithmically enforced by the hash difficulty).
One of the problems with banks is that, as their system scales, they have to burn immense amounts of carbon.
If we just scale down tradfi and switch to immutimle block chain ledgers, we would be eliminating the climate damaging effects caused by financial services companies without increasing the energy usage of cryptocurrency like bitcoin
That's not exactly true though, the energy used will scale with transactions, but it'll use much less energy per transaction going forward. I'm guessing there's a lot less duplication of effort with cryptocurrency at scale vs traditional financial services. With proof of stake, the energy requirements go way down.
I'm not saying we should switch overnight or anything, just that it's not the boogeyman everyone makes it out to be.
No, there is no increase in energy as the number of transactions goes up.
I'm not saying its small. I'm saying it doesn't go up. There is no relation betwee finding the next block nonce and the number of transactions that are put into the block, as it relates to energy usage.
The more transactions there are, the more demand there is for the currency, thus the more valuable finding the next block is, so more people get involved in mining. From what I understand, that relationship tends to be logarithmic, not linear, so cryptocurrencies should scale better than traditional finance, but that still needs to be proven in practice.
The more people that mine, the more number of zeros are required at the start of the hash (and the less profitable it becomes), so the less people mine.
Again, increasing the number of users or the amount of transactions does not increase the energy usage of bitcoin mining. It does, however, push usage further towards countries with cheap renewable energy like hydro and geothermal.
Increasing the number of transactions/users increases demand for the coin (more buyers), which increases coin value, which increases number of people mining, which increases energy usage.
However, it's not going to be linear.
It does, however, push usage further towards countries with cheap renewable energy like hydro and geothermal.
That's not necessarily true. Crypto doesn't care about renewables, it cares about total cost, and generally speaking, areas with coal and natural gas have cheaper energy than areas with higher percentages of renewables. Another factor is income tax, and areas with renewables tend to have higher tax rates. One clear exception is Washington State due to investment in hydro and no income tax, but that's just not feasible in most areas.
I don't have statistics for where crypto is being mined, so I can't really prove the point. But you can look up energy cost by state and compare to renewable percent, and generally the cheaper energy is in states with less renewable energy.
I'm not against cryptocurrencies or anything, I just think crypto mining is stupid and proof of stake is a much more interesting approach.
Crypto mining is heavily concentrated in areas where there is geothermal (eg Iceland) and adjacent to hydroelectric plants (eg China).
Its true that some mining is done with fossil fuels, but its the minority
Again, increasing the people who are mining decreases the reward for mining, so that pushes other people to shut down their mining operations. Again, the amount of energy does not change as it gets more popular
Crypto mining is heavily concentrated in areas where there is geothermal (eg Iceland) and adjacent to hydroelectric plants (eg China).
Do you have a source for this? Because I didn't find anything with a quick search. I did find some evidence that the US gov is interested in tracking this though.
Yes but unfortunately it's become paywalled
https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actually-consume
I'd be curious about the US study, but mostly if it looks at global trends. The US doesn't have much geothermal or free (subsidized) hydro, so it may not be a good representation of the global ecosystem.
All studies are going to be best-guesses, but HBR estimated 39-73% of bitcoin mining to be carbon neutral. Even the lower figure is twice the US grid's percent of renewables.
Nic Carter is a general partner at Castle Island Ventures, a Cambridge, MA-based venture firm investing in public blockchain startups, and the cofounder of Coin Metrics, a blockchain analytics firm. Previously, he served as Fidelity Investments’ first cryptoasset analyst.
So this article is obviously slanted in favor of cryptocurrencies.
But their dataset doesn’t include all mining pools, nor is it up to date, leaving us still largely in the dark about Bitcoin’s actual energy mix.
And there's the rub, we can't really know for sure what the cryptocurrency landscape looks like in terms of energy use. We do know cryptocurrency mining/processing will be attracted to lower cost energy and lower income taxes.
The author shows a lot of examples of how cryptocurrency mining can be eco-friendly, but we don't know if it actually is eco-friendly. For example, how likely is it that cryptocurrency miners would try to either steal energy (e.g. this example)? What about other types of energy fraud? Since cryptocurrency mining isn't constrained by borders, there's a huge incentive to go somewhere they can get away with cheaper operation costs, regardless of ethics.
That said, if we can move away from mining to just verifying transactions (e.g. proof of stake), that would cut energy use significantly.
But regardless, cryptocurrencies need to generate actual value to the average person. If they remain primarily used for speculation, people won't see the value. I think cryptocurrencies have a lot of potential, but they need to prove their worth. Make them better than traditional money (e.g. faster, cheaper transactions), and people may actually use them. To quote another part of the article:
How you answer that likely depends on how you feel about Bitcoin. If you believe that Bitcoin offers no utility beyond serving as a ponzi scheme or a device for money laundering, then it would only be logical to conclude that consuming any amount of energy is wasteful. If you are one of the tens of millions of individuals worldwide using it as a tool to escape monetary repression, inflation, or capital controls, you most likely think that the energy is extremely well spent.
What? Crypto currencies proved their worth Long before speculators joined the scene
Unfortunately, theres no way to keep speculators out
Maybe on the theoretical level, but cryptocurrencies just aren't practical. For example:
- high fees
- long transaction time
- high fluctuation in value
These make it impractical as a replacement for other currencies in most cases. Yes, there's a use case for those who cannot use traditional currencies for whatever reason (e.g. political refugees), but not for the everyday person.
So until it actually solves problems the average person has, it's going to stay in the realm of speculation.
No!!! YoU CaNt CoMpArE tHe TwO
We need to ban that shit federally.
Ban what, exactly? Using computers to do math?
agreed
First ban banks, they use wayy more energy (much more inefficient too)
Wow, lots of people ITT gobbling up misinformation spread by Big Banks without thinking critically.
Did you also defend Big Tobacco when they spread misinformation that tobacco was good for you and cannabis was bad for you?
Wow, shocking to are some miners using fossil fuels. Most mining is powered by renewable energy.
We really need a carbon tax.
Exactly. A carbon tax fixes a ton of other problems as well (top sources of greenhouse gas emissions):
- encourages more efficient vehicles
- encourages renewable electrical generation
- encourages changes to manufacturing processes
Oh, and by biggest impact isn't on average people, but on industries that have money to invest in reducing their own costs. It'll probably make some products more expensive in the short term, but it'll also create jobs for people who can reduce carbon footprint, and the increased costs should be temporary as companies adjust to the tax.
A carbon tax is one of my top political priorities, perhaps second only to election reform.
What about sanctioning countries that are committing genocide?
No, sanctions don't seem to work consistently and often backfire. If a country has already resorted to genocide, I highly doubt sanctions are going to convince them to stop.
Thats a generalization. Israel absolutely couldnot continue their genocide without the US sending them money and weapons. Sanctions in this case would absolutely stop that and bring an end to the genocide.
Well yeah, you made a general statement (countries committing genocide), so I made a general response.
In the case of Israel, maybe it would, but that's because Israel needs the US and Europe for trade because much of the rest of the world hates them. >50% exports go to US and EU, and just under half of imports come from US and EU.
But if we sanction Israel, they'll likely increase trade dramatically with China, which isn't in US interests, especially since we've given them so much military tech that China would be very interested in getting access to. Israel isn't just going to roll over, they'll take any action they can to continue their current agenda, just like Russia is doing despite crippling Western sanctions.
That's what the whole article I linked is about. Sanctions can work, but they often backfire as well. It's probably easier and more effective to make military equipment sales contingent on Israel reforming how they conduct their war.
China also opposes Israel's war crimes. And Israel couldn't support their population with trade alone. They're dependent on money from the US just to keep food and water flowing
we really need to outlaw bitcoin. its stupid
We just need to execute all crypto bros. Greedy, boring arseholes.
Bla bla bla. Its not about the amount of energy but the source of it.