undefined | Better HN

Skip to content

Top Best Ask Show New Jobs

0 pointsdoggosphere5y ago0 comments

Bitcoin does not consume fossil fuel as a raw material; it is not an ingredient required for its operation. It uses electricity which can be generated from any source, be it wind, solar, or coal.

Subsidized coal mining and untaxed carbon emissions are dangerous ideas.

0 comments

5 comments · 1 top-level

lottin5y ago· 4 in thread

Gratuitous use of electricity is anti-economical regardless of the source.

doggosphereOP5y ago

Electricity has higher economic value due to miners seeking to maximize profits.

This makes investments in renewable energy infrastructure more profitable and paid off sooner. A solar farm has more demand and higher margin for its products.

On the other hand, it means cheap coal energy is also financially productive.

What is anti-economical is the unfair price competition due to externalities not captured by coal energy's pricing.

webXL5y ago

"gratuitous use" is completely subjective, so the anti-economical assertion isn't provable. You're suggesting there are no trade-offs between PoS and PoW, no tradeoffs between solar+batteries vs coal or nuclear.

lottin5y ago

Yes, I'm saying there are no trade-offs between PoS and PoW. If there's one I'd like to know what it is.

webXL5y ago

PoS can be easily copied and modified by the powerful. There's little cost to create the system and force adoption rather than incentivize. There's an enormous amount of investment and technology dedicated to bitcoin that makes it more resistant to devaluation and duplication. But it saves electricity. That's the trade-off.

Why not focus on the source of the electricity rather than what the electricity is used for?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse