> No, but banning the miners meant they didn't have to build a whole pile more.
I wasn't arguing that it was a bad thing that China banned bitcoin mining, just that banning it didn't reduce fossil fuels at all (maybe slowed down how fast they expanded in the future, sure). And they're still planning to build 43 new ones[1] in addition to what they already have.
So now what? Can't ban bitcoin mining in China twice. How are we going to get them to reduce emissions now?
> "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point" - they have the moral high-ground on this issue.
You are neither the worst person I know, nor did you make a great point, nor am I heartbroken. Thanks for the snarky reference to a Clickhole article[2] that's just a slight sidestep from an ad hominem attack.
I also don't know who you mean by "they" or what moral high ground you're referring to. I already said it's shitty bitcoin used this much energy this year, and also what percentage was generated by fossil fuels. But it's not the only reason the world is still using so much fossil fuels, and energy demands around the world have been increasing rapidly even if you take out all of bitcoin's usage. Most of that is driven by economic growth in Asian countries[3], not bitcoin. You want those countries to ban economic growth too? How are we going to do that? Hell, how's anyone going to get the political will to do it in the U.S.?
For the record, I'm all for degrowth worldwide to help reduce the looming climate/biodiversity/water catastrophe, I just don't see how it's going to happen. Pretty sure we're doomed to have a major collapse forced upon us by the world in the next 20-30 years.
> So now what? Can't ban bitcoin mining in China twice. How are we going to get them to reduce emissions now?
Indeed, they have a lot of work ahead of them. I will not disagree. I'm hopeful their huge push towards nuclear power will help them bridge the gap. They are one of the biggest sources of carbon emissions and all sorts of other pollution in the world.
> You are neither the worst person I know, nor did you make a great point, nor am I heartbroken. Thanks for the snarky reference to a Clickhole article[2] that's just a slight sidestep from an ad hominem attack.
I sincerely apologize, but that wasn't directed at you! The heartbreak was mine, and the "worst person you know" was directed at the PRC government. I was implying that while they do not have a particularly stellar track record in the ethics department, in this case, they made a good (TM) choice.
I suspect our positions are closer together than they are far apart.
Fair enough. Sounds like we're mostly on the same page on this issue after all, except I don't want to see bitcoin eliminated, just somehow figure out a way to significantly reduce how much electricity it's started consuming and for it to be run on 100% renewables someday (hopefully sooner than later).
Its energy and resource consumption cap is proportional to its unit price times block reward. For the foreseeable future, as long as number go up, consumption will go up. And this is the most critical time for climate change in our lives. Any green energy we generate must go to displacing carbon-intensive processes or we'll be trading bitcoin for citrus from rafts on waterworld.
The worst part is, once we run out of block reward, there's no guarantee people will be willing to pay enough per transaction to actually secure the network to any meaningful degree, so all this resource consumption today may well be for nothing.
No, but banning the miners meant they didn't have to build a whole pile more.
"Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point" - they have the moral high-ground on this issue.
> Right now China has only promised to reduce its fossil fuel to 20% of its total energy use by 2060.
Sure. And it would have been a smaller reduction had they not kicked out the miners. This waste is purely additive.