> like power consumption used by bitcoin which is solved with newer tech
To be clear, that is absolutely not solved for Bitcoin, which still wastes energy at a disgusting rate. Some crypto things have shifted to non-proof-of-work approaches, usually proof of stake, but Bitcoin is still pumping out more CO2 than many countries.
>The crypto community should find a way to address the energy consumption of Bitcoin
It cannot be addressed. By definition. It's not like sadly there is a part of the Bitcoin algorithm that is very expensive computationally and therefore energetically and if we could only optimize that part the problem would go away. There is an intentionally hard part that is a part of the Bitcoin protocol to make the Proof-of-Work algorithm, that obviates the need for a central source of authority or trust, work.
Anybody who tells you that Bitcoin will overcome the exorbitant energy needs is ignorant or a scam artist.
> Based on national averages in the U.S., the bitcoin network consumes as much power as approximately 6 million homes. Yeah, it is definitely a lot of power, but it is also what secures and backs the bitcoin network.
> Bitcoin Does Not Waste Energy
Please come up with an algorithm for Bitcoin that does not use so much energy because if one exists, then Bitcoin wastes energy. I am certain that Bitcoin is not the crypto that will win in the long term if it sticks to PoW, so I probably don't need to waste my energy opposing it.
> Blockchain technology is purposefully burdensome and computationally distributed, making it notoriously energy intensive. Estimates put the energy used to create and trade a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin on a par with the total consumption of a country like Sweden. And that’s without accounting for the environmental footprint of the physical computer hardware.
Another critic who is willing to criticize without updating their knowledge as to the current state of the technology. Blockchain is not the same as proof-of-work. Yes, Bitcoin is energy-intensive, but other consensus algorithms do not use energy at nearly the same scale.
> I mean Bitcoin isn’t consuming electricity just for fun.
Not exactly for fun, but sort of: frivolously, needlessly, and with an arms race dynamic: Put in 1000x more energy, and you get - exactly the same result, because the algorithm adjusted the Proof of Waste to make it 1000x more wasteful.
> We must get our power generation efficient and clean as possible.
The thing is that, even if, it is not going to happen soon. And Energy for Bitcoin is out of proportion if you compare it with anything you have mentioned. Bitcoin wants to replace something with less efficient way. Bitcoin is backward thinking.
> The problem is that intentional carbon emissions (as opposed to incidental ones) have not even been a thing in the past.
What about Bitcoin makes it more intentional than any other industry? The product is proof of work, not energy wasted. That's why miners keep making their machines more efficient at producing proof of work instead of simply building larger power supplies and electric heaters.
There's also nothing in Bitcoin that makes it favor fossil fuels over green energy.
> The thing that increases the energy usage is the price of bitcoin.
This simply tells us that bitcoin has a dumb cost structure. Apparently its inventors didn't think about that either. But that's not our problem. Our problem is measuring efficiency, and for that we need a measure of efficiency. And a measure of efficiency needs to be chosen in terms of how good it is at measuring efficiency, not in terms of how good it is at hiding that a certain payment system has a dumb cost structure.
> if anyone has better use of that electricity, they are welcome to use it, which will make mining cryptocurrency unprofitable
I'm sorry, but you got this backwards. If bitcoin becomes a relevant part of the world economy, then it HAS to use a relevant part of the world energy, because consuming energy for PoW is the only limiting factor against a 51% attack. So, either Bitcoin is irrelevant - and thus its power usage is a literal waste - or it's relevant, and then its power usage has to become relevant in terms of global warming.
> One of the worst features of blockchain technologies like cryptocurrency and NFTs is their horrific energy use.
Some of them. Not all of them. Also in the distant future the second biggest one is not going to be using that 'horrific' energy use.
This point is not new, and this 'energy use' problem taring the same brush upon all cryptocurrencies due to a single bad egg is already solved by other projects today.
This is why articles that lazily over-generalise like this doesn't make any sense, unless you think we should stop driving all cars because the majority of them still emit too much CO2.
>Why is everyone obsessed with bitcoin electricity consumption? I wonder how much energy is required by the banking system to operate
People care because Bitcoin is, by design, massively wasteful. The banking system's energy use can be curtailed with green tech. Bitcoin's entire ledger is powered by proof of work, which by definition requires computers to grind at maximum power calculating millions of hashes. And the difficulty goes up if more people are mining. And on top of that, the Bitcoin network is extremely slow and several orders of magnitude less efficient than other banking systems in terms of transactions per second.
Everyone is obsessed because we're wasting damn near 1% of the world's energy so nerds can speculate on Dunning-Krugerrands and it's not doing anyone any favours in the long run.
To be clear, that is absolutely not solved for Bitcoin, which still wastes energy at a disgusting rate. Some crypto things have shifted to non-proof-of-work approaches, usually proof of stake, but Bitcoin is still pumping out more CO2 than many countries.
reply