xmrk ₿ ⚡️ on Nostr: Cannot believe those Greenpeace USA clowns keep attacking bitcoin: ...
Cannot believe those Greenpeace USA clowns keep attacking bitcoin: https://nitter.net/lopp/status/1681750013724983296#m
"Bitcoin causes x tons of CO2 emissions." So without bitcoin, there would be x tons less CO2 emissions, right? Sure, if you assume that people who buy bitcoin would instead never spend those funds. In other words, money have alternative uses, so if people cannot spend money on bitcoin, they would spend money on other stuff. And this other stuff will probably consume energy and cause CO2 emissions. The alternatives may cause less CO2, so destroying bitcoin may prevent some CO2, but not the whole x tons. And given that btc mining consumes much higher percentage of renewables than the average consumer, btc mining should cause less CO2 than alternatives. BTC mining freezes the oceans!
There are some complications. We are only interested in net inflow of funds to bitcoin, which should be equal to the cost of electricity used for mining. We only need to stop spending those funds in the world without bitcoin. So if someone bought some btc for $100, sold that btc for $600, we have an outflow of $500, which must proceed from someone buying btc, but this buyer may freely spend his $500 in the alternative world without bitcoin. Meanwhile, look at a miner selling his mined btc for say $100 - buyer of those btc must not spend those $100 in the alternative world without bitcoin . Still a laughable assumption.
And yes, instead of buying btc people may spend those funds planting trees. See - now we cut CO2 emissions by more than x tons. But this is unfair argument, basically assuming best-case scenario, you would need some good evidence to claim this.
Much more likely destination of those funds is gold. So without bitcoin we probably have more gold mining, which is not particularly environmentally-friendly process.
Of course there are millions other arguments - flaring, grid balancing, lowering time preference.... I just never saw this particular argument.
"Bitcoin causes x tons of CO2 emissions." So without bitcoin, there would be x tons less CO2 emissions, right? Sure, if you assume that people who buy bitcoin would instead never spend those funds. In other words, money have alternative uses, so if people cannot spend money on bitcoin, they would spend money on other stuff. And this other stuff will probably consume energy and cause CO2 emissions. The alternatives may cause less CO2, so destroying bitcoin may prevent some CO2, but not the whole x tons. And given that btc mining consumes much higher percentage of renewables than the average consumer, btc mining should cause less CO2 than alternatives. BTC mining freezes the oceans!
There are some complications. We are only interested in net inflow of funds to bitcoin, which should be equal to the cost of electricity used for mining. We only need to stop spending those funds in the world without bitcoin. So if someone bought some btc for $100, sold that btc for $600, we have an outflow of $500, which must proceed from someone buying btc, but this buyer may freely spend his $500 in the alternative world without bitcoin. Meanwhile, look at a miner selling his mined btc for say $100 - buyer of those btc must not spend those $100 in the alternative world without bitcoin . Still a laughable assumption.
And yes, instead of buying btc people may spend those funds planting trees. See - now we cut CO2 emissions by more than x tons. But this is unfair argument, basically assuming best-case scenario, you would need some good evidence to claim this.
Much more likely destination of those funds is gold. So without bitcoin we probably have more gold mining, which is not particularly environmentally-friendly process.
Of course there are millions other arguments - flaring, grid balancing, lowering time preference.... I just never saw this particular argument.