On 12/11/2017 09:59 PM, John Newman wrote: > > >> On Dec 10, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, g2s <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Kurt Buff <[email protected]> >>> Date: 12/9/17 2:50 PM (GMT-08:00) >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet >>> >>>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, z9wahqvh <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Michael Nelson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point, from the >>>>> point of view of understanding the system. The correct mapping is between >>>>> Bitcoin and the *price* of energy. >>>>> >>>>> If electricity were 10 times as expensive, Bitcoin mining use of electric >>>>> power would drop by a factor of 10 (for a given BTC price). The point of >>>>> spending money on mining is to be competitive. The absolute amount of >>>>> power >>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> This means that if governments raised the price of electricity, or >>>>> resources used for generating it, then BTC would never be a problem. Not >>>>> trivial to do, admittedly, but the point here is to understand the >>>>> system. >>>> >>>> >>>> it has nothing to do with the price of energy. the price of energy is >>>> never >>>> mentioned in the analyses that worry about Bitcoin's energy use, and for >>>> good reason. >>>> >>>> the problem with Bitcoin is that it uses an enormous QUANTITY of energy to >>>> verify each new transaction. That amount has nothing to do with the price >>>> of >>>> energy. It is a quantity of energy, measured in kilowatt hours or whatever >>>> quantity you want (they currently use "TeraWatt hours," because it uses >>>> that >>>> much). It takes a certain amount of coal or oil or solar power to generate >>>> those kilowatt hours, and the number is rising steeply: >>>> >>>> https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption >>>> >>>> There is no mention of price in the equations that produce this analysis, >>>> nor should there be. >>>> >>>> IF coal and oil did not pollute and we had infinite free energy, this >>>> would >>>> not be a problem. But they do, and we don't, and it is, and it's getting >>>> worse. >>> >>> You gloss over the fact that if coal and oil didn't pollute, and we >>> had infinite free energy, bitcoin would be (relatively) >>> [use|worth]less, and we'd not have to worry about most any shortage at >>> all. >>> >>> Michael drew the correct conclusion. >>> >>> Bitcoin is produced in relation to other economic goods, and under the >>> constraints of the costs of energy and computer infrastructure. If >>> those costs go up, production of bitcoin goes does, and if other >>> economic goods become more valuable relative to bitcoin, then again >>> production of bitcoin goes down. >>> >>> Kurt >>> >>> A total evasion of the point. Point being Dead planet" sooner than later. >>> >>> Rr >> >> You don't define what you mean by "kill the planet", nor "dead >> planet", but not even if every country launched all of their nuclear >> weapons at once could we kill the planet. It's not even certain such >> an event would kill all humans. >> >> At this stage in our technology, we simply can't do it. >> >> Kurt > > > Wrong. The nuclear winter from ~15000 nukes detonated around the globe > would kill all humanity. >
Correct me if i am wrong but won't energy for bitcoin mining drop soon as we get to the end of the blockchain ? --- Marina
