Bitcoin can push global warming above 2 C in a couple decades

[Jim__]

From phys.org:

A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change finds that if Bitcoin is implemented at similar rates at which other technologies have been incorporated, it alone could produce enough emissions to raise global temperatures by 2°C as soon as 2033.

"Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency with heavy hardware requirements, and this obviously translates into large electricity demands," said Randi Rollins, a master's student at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and coauthor of the paper.

Purchasing with bitcoins and several other cryptocurrencies, which are forms of currency that exist digitally through encryption, requires large amounts of electricity. Bitcoin purchases create transactions that are recorded and processed by a group of individuals referred to as miners. Miners group every Bitcoin transaction made during a specific timeframe into a block. Blocks are then added to the chain, which is the public ledger. The verification process by miners, who compete to decipher a computationally demanding proof-of-work in exchange for bitcoins, requires large amounts of electricity.

The electricity requirements of Bitcoin have created considerable difficulties, and extensive online discussion, about where to put the facilities or rings that compute the proof-of-work of Bitcoin. A somewhat less discussed issue is the environmental impacts of producing all that electricity.

more ...

[mr_lebowski]

1. Wow ... this article is WILDLY wrong in it's terminology ...

I don't disagree with the overall conclusion that Bitcoin is extremely wasteful in terms of electricity, but the author here doesn't understand how it works, nor a number of its important 'terms'.

Especially not 'miners' lol ...

CREATING Bitcoins, which is what is done by 'Miners' ... is what uses the electricity in vast amounts.

PURCHASING using Bitcoin ... is not any big deal in terms of energy consumption.

[Jim__]

2. My understanding is that all bitcoin transactions require mining.

My understanding is based on my reading and not having actually used or worked with bitcoin. But here's an excerpt from an article I found online that indicates to me, all bitcoin transactions require use of the blockchain, and so, miners:

...

Here's how it works. When you and others announce transactions to a blockchain network, computers on that network race to solve a complicated mathematical puzzle based on those transactions. A computer that succeeds announces it to the network, and the transaction is accepted if other computers verify that none of the assets in question were already used. That's what'll keep you from selling the same concert ticket twice on a blockchain-based ticket market. (Citizen Ticket and Active Ticketing are working on this.)

But today's mining approach, called "proof of work," has huge drawbacks.

For one thing, mining works most profitably on powerful computers that consume immense amounts of electrical power. For example, bitcoin mining today uses about as much power as the country of Singapore, enough to power 4.4 million houses, according to cryptocurrency analyst firm Digiconomist. That amount is growing.

For another, transactions are relatively slow. Blockchain transactions can race past transactions that rely on middlemen and reconciliation procedures, like escrow accounts for home purchases or international money transfers. But bitcoin transactions can take about 10 minutes, which is why cryptocurrencies today aren't useful for just buying something in a store.

...

My reading of that agrees with what the article in phys.org is saying.

[mr_lebowski]

6. Your reading is not unreasonable given only basic knowledge on Bitcoin ...

Totally get why you're saying that.

In reality, the process described here:
"When you and others announce transactions to a blockchain network, computers on that network race to solve a complicated mathematical puzzle based on those transactions. A computer that succeeds announces it to the network, and the transaction is accepted if other computers verify that none of the assets in question were already used"

Is NOT, in fact, a description of 'mining'.

Thus, this article is poorly written, in that it indirectly conflates 'mining' with 'block chain reconciliation' ... they're actually two different things. A 'miner' may, or may NOT take part in reconciliation, and others may take part in reconciliation withOUT being Miners.

That action of 'Mining', by what are known as 'miners', is what uses up vast amounts of power, and it is specifically the process of 'creating' Bitcoins, not 'spending them'.

[Duppers]

3. WTF?

This article smells.

[littlemissmartypants]

4. Now, I've heard EVERYTHING!

Thanks for the post, Jim__.

♡lmsp

[mr_lebowski]

5. It's not wrong that bitcoin mining uses a TON of power ...

Basically 1 Bitcoin = 1000's and 1000's of watts of utterly, 100% wasted electricity. Like, that's literally what 'A Bitcoin' is, in the exact same sense that '1 Gallon Of Gas' is '500lbs of decayed plant matter compressed under ground for 30M years' or whatever the numbers are.

There's no way THAT ALONE is enough to single-handedly push THAT much global warming, but combined with everything else shoving us in that direction, it's definitely not 'helping' ...

[littlemissmartypants]

7. This is for you, mr_lebowski.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2018/10/29/bitcoin-predicted-to-be-the-nail-in-the-coffin-of-climate-change/