Wow, Tesla is giving up any pretence of being environmentally friendly by buying bitcoin, driving up the price, and creating even more massive energy wastage.

· · Web · 2 · 9 · 15

Bitcoin is a massive, massive ongoing ecological disaster. You can not in any way pretend you are an environmentally conscious company, and support bitcoin.

At the moment, one of the biggest things that could be done to help fight global warming is to destroy bitcoin.

I've been trying to put up with Musk and still being positive about Tesla for what they are trying to achieve for the environment, but this just throws that all straight out of the window.

I used to want to get a Tesla. Not any more. Not after this.

Tesla states that their carbon savings so far are 3,6 megatons:

The current carbon footprint of bitcoin is 36,95 megatons/year: (probably underestimated)

The price of bitcoin has risen 10% on the announcement of this news.

Bitcoin's economic model is set up so that a 10% increase in price will lead to roughly a ten percent increase in emissions.

So in one year, this price increase will wipe out ALL of Tesla's carbon savings.

And that is underestimating both the carbon footprint of bitcoin, and the price increase that this caused, because buying those coins probably increased the price by a lot more beforehand.

@mrmcmayhem @WAHa_06x36

1. Most US dollars are digital so their environmental cost is the computers already online

2. Printing US dollars or other national currencies is a miniscule carbon footprint compared to a bitcoin, and the transaction costs are lower than that

3. Bitcoin is not a currency, it is gambling a stock whose value comes from fantasies and the death of our planet.

@garritfra Coindesk is cryptocurrency cult propaganda. That article is complete garbage.

@WAHa_06x36 I'm not advocating for any side here; just throwing another point of view in the mix.

@garritfra It's a heavily biased point of view, with a strong economic interest in lying to you.

@WAHa_06x36 @garritfra "CoinDesk columnist Nic Carter is partner at Castle Island Ventures, a public blockchain-focused venture fund based in Cambridge, Mass. He is also the cofounder of Coin Metrics, a blockchain analytics startup."

Nic Carter: akchually Bitcoin is good for teh environment

@garritfra @WAHa_06x36 this article is just saying that bitcoin mining is ok because there is something worse.

Also, deceptive words, and shifting the attention to their narration, that bitcoin criticism is just criticism towards the decentralized nature of the currency.

@WAHa_06x36 Nice part is, bitcoin mining has an end date. Not sure exactly when, but there will be no more bitcoin to mine at some point. Can't say that tesla will ever run out of cars to make.

@WAHa_06x36 I don't find your linkage between the rise in BTC price and the rise in the emissions of it, could you explain it?

@ignaloidas Bitcoin is designed so that miners have to compete for mining rewards. Your chance of getting a reward is directly proportional to how much computing power you are able to put in relative to the total power put in by everyone.

This causes an economic equilibrium where every miner has to put in as much computing power as they can possibly afford in order to stay in the game. And they pay for it by selling the bitcoins they gain as rewards.

@ignaloidas So higher price means that they can afford more, which means that they are force to deploy more, otherwise the others will do it, and their own share will decrease.

Their price is an up-front cost for the hardware, and then an ongoing cost for buying up energy for the hardware, which is the main factor in these calculations.

So in the end, higher price means more electricity bought, which means a higher carbon footprint.

@WAHa_06x36 That I'm aware of. I don't see how a 10% increase in price would result in 10% increase in pollution from mining. To increase your mining capacity 10% you will need to upgrade your whole infrastructure in most cases, which means building new farms. And new farms are currently built where power is cheapest. And with the exception of the middle east, the cheapest power is renewable, and it is where most miners are looking at. Untapped hydro, geothermal power is what is growing Bitcoin.

@ignaloidas It doesn't matter what bitcoin uses. What bitcoin DOESN'T use, somebody else will.

If bitcoin uses renewables, somebody else will have to use coal, when they could have used renewables instead, and we could have shut down the coal plant.

Additional energy use carries the environmental cost of the dirtiest energy you COULD have used for it, not what you actually do use. Because you still force someone else to use the dirtier energy.

@WAHa_06x36 Iceland produces 5 times more electricity than it's people use. It is currently used by bitcoin miners and aluminum plants. The aluminum plants literally ship ore to Iceland, purify it there, and ship it off to sell. And bitcoin is it's cleanest choice to use it. It's not the only place in the world like this. Many others aren't as fortunate, as they don't have ocean access for easy cargo. Bitcoin is helping to utilize the energy that otherwise could not be distributed to others.

@ignaloidas @WAHa_06x36 so instead of being usefully used to make aluminum, it increases the price of making aluminium there pushing it out to other locations where it is less ecologically friendly.

The same happens with renewables.

And reminder that bitcoin mining is completely useless, other than keeping up the hype.

@jasper @WAHa_06x36 Look into this from Iceland's perspective. It doesn't pollute unlike aluminum, it pays more, it brings investments into IT infrastructure. It is the perfect use for the tons of spare power they have.

About the usefulness: from who's perspective? For Iceland it is very useful to use up all of that spare power they have without pollution. No longer do the ships have to sail with cargo unfit for shipping and wasting fuel transferring electricity.

@jasper @WAHa_06x36 Also, to note, basically all aluminum production is hydro powered, because you need very large amounts of electricity, and hydro is one of the only things that can provide that cheaply.

@ignaloidas @jasper Why the hell would we look at it from Iceland's perspective? We need to look at it from the Earth's perspective. We are trying to live on this planet. Bitcoin is working directly against that.

@WAHa_06x36 @jasper I don't see how mining bitcoin in Iceland changes the Earths perspective. If you want something better to shoot, shoot food waste, shoot overheating of homes, shoot unnecessary water usage in areas with little ground water, shoot the unnecessary dependence on gas for heating, etc. There are a lot of higher target problems, that you can start to tackle yourself and make actual impact. Yelling on the internet won't stop Iceland from mining Bitcoin.

@ignaloidas @jasper You were told, just a few posts up, how it does. If it doesn't happen in Iceland, it happens elsewhere, with dirtier energy.

Again, the environmental impact of bitcoin is determined by the energy it uses, but by the dirtier energy it forces others to use.

And there are a lot of other problems to solve, yes! That does not mean that we shouldn't be solving this one. The other problems are hard. This one is easy: Destroy bitcoin, problem solved.

@WAHa_06x36 @jasper I said " don't see how mining bitcoin in Iceland changes the Earths perspective". IN ICELAND. In places that have overabundance of energy. Mining Bitcoin there makes next to no environmental impact, because without massively expensive infrastructure to move that energy elsewhere, YOU CANNOT USE IT. IT'S NOT JUST ICELAND.

Also, LMAO at thinking you can "destroy bitcoin". Probably the best way to do that is to stop talking about it. Which you are currently failing to do.

@WAHa_06x36 @jasper Please look at this chart. Where do you think China is getting the energy for refining aluminum?

@ignaloidas @WAHa_06x36 i literally just said it. Using renewables for bitcoin means not using it elsewhere.

_Any_ resource use means you can't use it elsewhere. Saying where it comes from is just weaseling about it.

"Investing" in bitcoin, pushes energy demands up,(which is the wrong way) makes double-sha256 devices with no other use. It is indeed better to invest in heat pumps to heat housing etcetera.

@jasper @WAHa_06x36 Just like I said "Bitcoin is helping to utilize the energy that otherwise could not be distributed to others." No, you cannot just take the energy from Iceland and give it to USA so it no longer uses coal power plants. There is no feasible way. Notably, in the USA itself, there is a massive amounts of hydro power in north of west coast. There is quite a few big Bitcoin mining operations there as well. Infrastructure isn't sufficient to transfer it elsewhere for better use.

The narrative that energy is somehow overproduced and needs to be used is plain dishonest.

@federico3 It is not "overproduced". It's "overavailable". It is there, you just need to harvest it and put it somewhere. Sadly, the places that have such abundance often have nowhere to put it, because such places are often mountainous and sparsely populated. A few decades ago they housed aluminum refineries, but since most of them have reduced their capacities because of China having *TONS* of cheap hydro energy and dominating the worlds market. Basically all of those regions now mine Bitcoin.

@WAHa_06x36 I suppose this apply to all other cryptocurrency as well

@huy_ngo Yes, although they are so far a much smaller problem. But in general, they are a net negative on the world and should be destroyed, not just for the environmental impact but also for the massive amount of criminality they enable.

@WAHa_06x36 I believe bitcoin was a great proof of concept, but it doesn't actually serve any of the objectives it was set out to achieve. Proof of stake creates a reserve system and provides aligned incentives for keeping the network healthy and "fair."

@WAHa_06x36 so perhaps "any" is incorrect, it became the example of a "trusted" system. Even after modification and forkings, it's kept going through perceived value. The value of a modern currency is based on faith so it did show that people can have faith in cryptocurrency

@WAHa_06x36 The really stupid thing is that there are more efficient alternatives like etherium which are moving to PoS to replace the environmental harmful PoW.

@swiley That would remove the environmental harm, if they can ever get it to work, which seems to be a lot more challenging than expected.

But it does not remove all the other harm that bitcoin does, however.

@swiley They've been "moving to PoS REAL SOON" for a couple of years at this point.

I'm not holding my breath.

@swiley (Also, while PoS may be less _directly_ environmentally damaging, it is still built on the tenets of capitalism, with ever more given to those who already have more than enough) @WAHa_06x36

@pettter @WAHa_06x36 I'm all ears for a functioning alternative to capitalism.

@swiley There's a whole bunch, as it turns out! Both to specific practises within capitalism and to the system as a whole. Socialism is probably the most well-explored set of variants, though anarchism of various flavours also has been tried at various points.

I'm a bit wary of going into specifics without talking definitions, empiricism, caveats etc.

And I would start off by questioning how well you see capitalism "functioning" at the moment? @WAHa_06x36

@swiley Also, this doesn't even go into various types of highly functioning advanced societies that are far beyond the labels "socialism" and "anarchism" thanks to predating both and having been largely erased by western historiography. @WAHa_06x36

@pettter @WAHa_06x36 Can you point to a country where either of these ideas have resulted in a lasting situation that's pleasant and safe for most people? (especially workers.)


@swiley Cuba is probably the best example, but Vietnam is also pretty good, as far as I understand.

Could you point to a country where capitalism has led to a lasting situation that's pleasant and safe for most people, especially workers?


@swiley But to be clear, the idea(ls) of socialism has consistently led to tangible improvements for workers, through socialized health care and education, worker safety laws, unionization and worker involvement in decision making and salary setting etc.

The idea(ls) of capitalism consistenly hasn't, since it relies on workers being available for exploitation. Less money to the poor, less resources for safety etc etc.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!