There may be some folks who believe that there is an "us" that is willing (or able) to be "driven towards green energy," but I am thinking that you are getting your language wrong here.. because the incentives built into bitcoin gives no ratts' asses whether energy is green or not... There are incentives that the energy be less expensive; however, the extent to which any mining operation is going to be operating at "optimal efficiencies" will depend upon a variety of factors - which (the last time I checked) continue to be decentralized to the extent that individuals, mining institutions (and surely pools too) are considering a variety of factors in regards to when, where and how to conduct their mining operations and "green" aspects may well be discretionary - depending on a variety of factors.
I am not proclaiming that you are completely wrong.. but your suggestion that "green" has to be a priority based on current happenings seems to misdescribe what might be dogs and what might be tails - even though they are both present on the same animal.
Not sure we are talking about the same incentives. Mining with cheaper, green energy instead of dirty, more expensive energy : Which is better?
Yes. Maybe we are not talking about the same incentives? I already mentioned that bitcoin is designed in such a way that likely incentivizes the production of energy and also very mobile ways to seek the cheapest costs for energy, and sure there may be various trade offs, but the free market in bitcoin has a lot of already built-in incentives that likely push it towards efficient uses of energy - whether green or not might involve some political questions regarding definitions - and I doubt that there is any kind of reasonable and logical basis for having so much negative attention on bitcoin and to be suggesting that it is not using energy responsibly.. and seems like a BIG ass distraction to me including that the lame ass arguments regarding bitcoin using too much energy are coming from folks who either 1) hardly have any clue about what bitcoin is, and/or 2) want to control how energy is used in order to attack bitcoin.
There are other factors regarding energy besides expense and whether it is green or not.. but also whether it is reliable and whether it is contributing to society more than it is hurting society. Those folks trying to get into figuring out micromanagement aspects regarding what kind of energy bitcoin is using are just making shit up because they are against bitcoin and they do not believe bitcoin is valuable.. so you might even be needing a bat slappening to be making those energy sourcing arguments here..... because on the grid level there are various incentives that can be made regarding how to produce energy and you expect bitcoiners need to become energy source experts besides realizing that it surely is much greener to wash our clothes by hand and to hang them out to dry rather than to use electricity, and it is also greener to not have christmas lights rather than to have them. .. so let's get rid of the christmas lights, they are adding way less value to society than bitcoin and they cost more money (energy) to society too. Do we need to go down those micromanagement roads.. as you seem to want to do?
Economically and ethically obviously the clean energy miners. I already gave you the source on green energy production costing less than outdated energy production.
You want to me to go back and look? You are saying that you want to control how miners are using energy and where they can locate based on "green" considerations rather than being able to go and to mine wherever they want based on their own assessments of energy costs that they might get off the grid or they might figure out ways to source there own energy.. so it seems better to me to let them do what they are going to do and the green issue is a sourcing issue and not a consumption issue... but yeah.. we have a shortage of energy, right? A purposefully imposed shortage of energy, no? That causes emergencies no? We need to micromanage how people use energy, right?
At some point, people will start realizing that they can get the same electricity but at lower costs.
Have you calculated all the costs for all locations and for all people based on what resources they have in each area? Do you think that bitcoin miners are not seeking lower costs already?
Thats when big oil starts dying and their lobbyist buddies no longer have incentives to screw everyone over by polluting our living-environment and bodies. I guess some people just enjoy their fish pre-oiled before cooking.
Guten Apetite.
Big oil made our lives worse, and we gotta get rid of them? What about nuclear? Those guys too? How is europe going to heat itself this winter? Don't they need oil and maybe other forms of energy? Do they have infrastructure in place for "green sources?" Are the green sources reliable to be able to get rid of other sources? should we get rid of oil before the infrastructure is built out for the various "green sources?" Maybe if we cut back consumption? What do you think we might cut? Maybe we can wear sweaters in the winter and take off some clothes in the summer? And maybe we don't really need to mine bitcoin? What is bitcoin good for, anyhow? It surely is not needed, even though others are making those choices and the bitcoin miners are not even really any kind of meaningful burden on the grids... sure there might be some local examples in which bitcoin miners have raised energy costs in some regions, right? Is that because they were seeking less expensive energy, so the prices went up when the bitcoin miners arrived?
Aren't you presuming too much, goldkingcoiner? Where do you get the idea that "Green" energy is always cheaper? Might the cost of energy and the advantages and disadvantages of each energy type differ based on location, and sometimes there could be some justifications to operate some kinds of energy at a loss in order to fund research or the development of future energy-related technologies.. and surely bitcoin has a lot of various ways in which energy can be consumed that had not been previously practical. so I am not really disagreeing with the ideas about the need to analyze generation, transmission and distribution.. . .and it seems that we also have concerns about how energy is consumed too.. especially when it comes to certain kinds of consumption that is deemed to be "less important" by some segments of the population.. so surely generation, transmission and distribution are supply side factors and some concerns about consumption has recently been part of what is being considered in the recent formulas too... and also who consumes the energy.. there seem to be some protectionism regarding who can consume what kinds of energy too, no? and bitcoin is part of the idea.. but "we" don't want poor people to be consuming energy, right? They might get richer by figuring out how to consume energy in ways to benefit their situations rather than contributing to the ability of others to be able to consume. I am not claiming to know the answer.. but it seems that arguments are being convoluted and maybe it is not always on purpose... even though sometimes it seems that the convolution is happening on purpose.. and it is not just on one side of the political spectrum, either
I linked the source. But I guess if you live in the Arctic, it would be hard to generate electricity with sunlight or wind.
I guess you are half-right. But a few more decades of global warming and we won't have to worry about that. We will be too busy treating daily heatstroke.
Wind and solar is the solution to our world wide energy issues? There's gotta be some other sources than that, no? It cost money/energy for those solar panels to make them, doesn't it? Do we need batteries too? Are all our cars going to contain batteries? Is that going to be reliable? Do you think we should just completely get rid of all the gas powered cars? How about airplanes and ships? Should we get rid of airplanes and ships too? You got this all figured out? Big oil bad, Green good? and you know which is good and which not good, right?
Big oil is the bad guy? I have difficulties with this presumption.
Your difficulties have been noted and will be taken seriously.
You are not going to take my "difficulties" seriously, and maybe my difficulties do not matter because I am just some random peep on the interwebs? You know which way we should be going in society, and to attempt to relate this back to bitcoin mining, you believe that it is important to try to make sure that bitcoin miners are sufficiently green because there is some kind of consumption responsibility that each of us have, even if decentralized.. we need to have green aspiring obligations... and oil is not green and cannot be green and needs to be squashed into oblivion because the world is going to be able to sufficiently and adequately run and prosper through wind and solar and maybe a few other green ways that you have not yet mentioned (geothermal, hydro and maybe some other non-specified ways?) Things will be fine... oh yeah, global warming too... making the bitcoin miners more green is going to reduce global warming, too. It's for the children, too.
I understand various arguments regarding privatizing the gains and socializing the losses, so I would agree that companies should not be socializing some of their expenses (which would include costs to the environment that sometimes need to be sufficiently and adequately considered).. I am also not inclined to privatize everything, so there is a role for government and also a role to protect various public interests when it comes to energy production and also energy availability, yet I have difficulties considering that the energy companies are always the bad guys.. because there are some needs for allowing for the production and finding of resources and the various supply-side factors that you mentioned.
Big Oil is running on marketing only, at this point. People are either too afraid or too greedy to give our old energy production system up for a better system.
Oh? That's the issue? Our failure to give up on our dependency on BIG oil is contributing to our inability to sufficiently and adequately transition to more greener energy sources? Oh? that's how this matter is playing out?
Like people who cannot give fiat up even though it is obviously becoming redundant. We call those people nocoiners.
Climate change deniers are the nocoiners of science.
You seem to be mixing up your ideas, and creating false equivalencies.
Maybe you should 'splain ur lil selfie regarding what you are proposing when it comes to bitcoin miners? What kinds of impositions do they need to have in order to contribute to "science" and the "greener" ways forward? Do we need to verify their ways of using energy or what is it that you are suggesting in relation to the topic(s) of this thread? I think that my point has been that a lot of the green bullshit talk have been attack vectors on bitcoin.. and the creation of a lot of false dialogues and dichotomies, but you seem to believe that they green topic is relevant to this thread (and bitcoin) somehow even though from my perspective the green ideas seem to be causing unnecessary impositions (aka ways to attack bitcoin and bitcoiners)
