NWR Selling bitcoin

Antoine Singer said:
Just another confirmation that Humankind is serious on achieving human extinction. There are obviously many other steps taken but this one is quite singular in its contribution without any identified benefit whatsoever for humanity....except money laundering...
Click to expand...
It's worth doing a bit of maths here just for context...

In 2019, the world generated 22,315 TWh of electrical energy. Argentina's contribution to that was 146, or 0.65% of global production, with Bitcoin last year consuming 143TWh last year (which is not the 10% over Argentina's 2019 figures that is widely reported - 2% less in reality but this is what happens when people don't question the news).

The top 5 generating countries produced 14,498 TWh between them - the top 2 generated 11,904 TWh....

My point is...comparing it to a specific country or describing the rate of increase of electricity consumption doesn't really say anything without further context. This is a basic feature of statistical analysis.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's pretty wasteful. But it's unlikely to be a serious contributor towards human extinction, and arguably not even a minor one.

As for a lack of identified benefit...I mean we've been over this already: there is one and it's that transactions are secure. Plenty of people are willing to pay for that, be it in electricity, gold coins, blood, a credit card or otherwise.
 
Arguing whether this is Plus or minus 2% of Argentina is absurd

-2% in 2019 probably means 15% more in 2020 and more in 2021

and comparing bitcoin with the whole of China or the US ... come on!


The main benefit is it is a lottery untaxed by governments!... although this may and needs to change



The solution to global warming is effort in all fields.



Aviation make exactly the same claim as you do when saying they are only responsible for a small part of GW. As always, it is all a matter of balance and relative size giving you intensity

If you fragment activities enough, no activity is responsible anymore for GM. (my car is responsible for nothing) and progress on human extinction will be quick.

0.6% of all electricity consumed in the world for this very small activity is huge enormous and absolutely absurd. There is probably nothing on this planet with such an intensely negative balance
 
Generally I agree with you Antoine, all aspects of energy consumption need to be reassessed to have an appreciable impact on GW. It is well documented that certain areas of production will yield a lot of benefit from a relatively small amount of effort though. Bitcoin is not one of them.

My point though is that the hyperbole around things like bitcoin’s energy consumption make it incredibly difficult to have rational conversations about solutions. It starts with the type of thing I pointed out - not insignificant inaccuracies reported as fact. That develops into some of the ideas thrown around in this thread - lotteries, Ponzi schemes etc, which just results in the people who do understand it not taking those who don’t seriously.
 
Suggesting it’s playing a contributing factor in ending human existence is what’s hyperbole, IMO. I quite clearly said I think its energy consumption is not a good thing, but the solution is not just to kill Bitcoin off in reaction, the solution is to pursue green energy overall.

Tax is certainly one way to deal with it but the issue we’re talking about is about the impact of energy generation more than anything else. Carbon taxing is well researched and likely to be very effective.

I just find the insistence on using Bitcoin as the poster child of excessive consumption to be utterly bizarre when contextualised with history and other global consumption figures.
 
So this is 297 TWh in 2024! Twice Argentina electricity consumption so well over 1% of global consumption and 130 million tons CO2 emissions... This is really a growing activity!
 
I wonder what steps could be taken by state actors to fundamentally erode the value / market price of bitcoin? It strikes me that its current high market valuation is one of the causes of the compounding environmental disaster as more and more energy is channeled into making bitcoins, so if the price was driven south, then possibly this might reduce the number of miners and level of energy consumption.
 
Has anyone seen comparisons of the overall costs (energy and otherwise) of different forms of currency transactions and investments? Creating coins and notes, transporting them, and creating the retail and banking infrastructure to handle them is hardly cost free either. And the overall cost (sorry - I meant of course contribution to our economy) and environmental impact of the financial sector must be huge

(I had never thought of this until one small cycle repair shop surprised me by saying they preferred payment by credit card rsther than cash - as they had to make fewer trips to the bank, overall they felt the money was more secure, and even with cash they had to pay fees to the bank.)
 
Steve Slatcher said:
Has anyone seen comparisons of the overall costs (energy and otherwise) of different forms of currency transactions and investments? Creating coins and notes, transporting them, and creating the retail and banking infrastructure to handle them is hardly cost free either. And the overall cost (sorry - I meant of course contribution to our economy) and environmental impact of the financial sector must be huge

(I had never thought of this until one small cycle repair shop surprised me by saying they preferred payment by credit card rsther than cash - as they had to make fewer trips to the bank, overall they felt the money was more secure, and even with cash they had to pay fees to the bank.)
Click to expand...
I have a 7 yo and that generation have no idea of the concept of cash and counting money. They teach it at school but never see in practice. I wonder what percentage of transactions are digital?
 
Richard Zambuni said:
'Emissions from mining coins in China are expected to peak in 2024, releasing as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as all of Italy, according to a studypublished in Nature Communications.'
Surely that is insane.
Click to expand...
Of course it is, Richard. I'm repeatedly agreeing that its energy usage is a really unpleasant factor of its existence.

But surely it rather clearly proves that plenty of people do feel they need it though? One of the more easily justified uses is in Venezuela - scores of people are using Bitcoin to avoid the hyperinflation issues of the Bolivar as citizens feel it's a more stable store of value.

Could you therefore not make the same argument against fast fashion for example, its impact on the environment is horrific amongst a whole host of other awful things from slave labour to inundating the third world with discarded clothes - I don't really feel the world needs it - is the solution just "getting rid of it" for something that clearly has a lot of demand? Surely not. It's so much more complex than that, in the same way that distilling Bitcoin down to its energy consumption is equally not as simple as a non-contextualised headline makes it sound.

I don't know why my posts seem to be perceived as having a relaxed opinion on Bitcoin's impact - I'm saying let's have a rational conversation about the issues it has, the potential solutions, without being clouded by grand statements in headlines that don't communicate reality all that well. As another example of why the electricity figure should be queried is we have no idea what percentage of that electricity is generated renewably - solar bitcoin mines are a thing, and actually there's quite a lot of justification to pursue renewable energy as a source of power for it as the price continues falling below the cost of fossil fuel derived electricity.

So, like Formula 1 being responsible for most of the huge leaps in more efficient driving, Bitcoin mining could be a catalyst in pursuing electricty generation that's better for the globe. There is so much to learn from this particular crisis that merely "shutting it down" (which isn't possible anyway) feels more like a waste of incomplete progress to me.
 
Julian Seers-Martin said:
Of course it is, Richard. I'm repeatedly agreeing that its energy usage is a really unpleasant factor of its existence.

But surely it rather clearly proves that plenty of people do feel they need it though? One of the more easily justified uses is in Venezuela - scores of people are using Bitcoin to avoid the hyperinflation issues of the Bolivar as citizens feel it's a more stable store of value.

Could you therefore not make the same argument against fast fashion for example, its impact on the environment is horrific amongst a whole host of other awful things from slave labour to inundating the third world with discarded clothes - I don't really feel the world needs it - is the solution just "getting rid of it" for something that clearly has a lot of demand? Surely not. It's so much more complex than that, in the same way that distilling Bitcoin down to its energy consumption is equally not as simple as a non-contextualised headline makes it sound.

I don't know why my posts seem to be perceived as having a relaxed opinion on Bitcoin's impact - I'm saying let's have a rational conversation about the issues it has, the potential solutions, without being clouded by grand statements in headlines that don't communicate reality all that well. As another example of why the electricity figure should be queried is we have no idea what percentage of that electricity is generated renewably - solar bitcoin mines are a thing, and actually there's quite a lot of justification to pursue renewable energy as a source of power for it as the price continues falling below the cost of fossil fuel derived electricity.

So, like Formula 1 being responsible for most of the huge leaps in more efficient driving, Bitcoin mining could be a catalyst in pursuing electricty generation that's better for the globe. There is so much to learn from this particular crisis that merely "shutting it down" (which isn't possible anyway) feels more like a waste of incomplete progress to me.
Click to expand...
I understand your points better now, Julian.

But I suspect the percentage of Bitcoins held by people in hyperinflationary economies might be rather small.
 
Would I be correct in thinking that in a few years or decades most nations will use a digital currency and dispose of coins and notes so called dirty money. More clarity on transactions and no more money under the mattress?
 
max.oldfield said:
Would I be correct in thinking that in a few years or decades most nations will use a digital currency and dispose of coins and notes so called dirty money. More clarity on transactions and no more money under the mattress?
Click to expand...
Max that is the current situation. Only 5% or thereabouts is physical notes and coins. The rest just ledger entries.
 
Every time I have the cash discussion with someone, it always comes down to not wanting to lose the privacy that cash offers. What other reasons are there other than nostalgia and a lack of card payment facilities?
 
Julian Seers-Martin said:
What other reasons are there other than nostalgia and a lack of card payment facilities?
Click to expand...
The ability to avoid financial repression. Governments were thinking of just taking your money away when it is deposited digitally by removing a few per cent to encourage you to spend it and not save it. All done at the stroke of a few keys. And why should the government be able to track every transaction you make down to the very last detail? That's a huge loss of privacy. Governments have always destroyed the value of money and making it digital makes that even easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top