Crypto Conversation

[Acymetric]

Unless you think the energy is still being wasted, in which case it is a net negative when you factor in setup costs and such.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Unless you think the energy is still being wasted, in which case it is a net negative when you factor in setup costs and such.

The company is taking the financial risk of setting up the generators to mine BTC. They obviously see the value, and share the value of the mined BTC with the community where the landfills are located.

There really is no downside here.

[Kdogg]

Bitcoin miners found a way to use wasted energy contained in a landfill’s Methane gas, and are now powering a secure, sound money and store of value network for the world with it. And creating a revenue stream for the local community in the process.

They should be congratulated.

And as a reminder, the Bitcoin uses too much energy narrative has been disproven time and again.
BTC uses less than .05% of the world’s energy requirements, with over 60% BTC energy use now clean and renewable.

The .05% total energy use represents a rounding error of world energy use. Meaning if Bitcoin disappeared tomorrow, there would be no noticeable impact.

Try again. 🙂

To be clear, these type of facilitates already exist. It's not a new thing. Manufacturing companies have done it before and even power companies. This particular mining company is just partnering with this landfill. It did not invent the idea. As long as it doesn't affect the electricity rates for the community I don't see it as a problem. The shorter term climate affect of the methane is worse than the CO2 that the landfill will create.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

To be clear, these type of facilitates already exist. It's not a new thing. Manufacturing companies have done it before and even power companies. This particular mining company is just partnering with this landfill. It did not invent the idea. As long as it doesn't affect the electricity rates for the community I don't see it as a problem. The shorter term climate affect of the methane is worse than the CO2 that the landfill will create.

What’s new is the municipality’s landfill has now become a revenue stream for the community by mining BTC, while reducing the negative climate effects of the Methane gas. Win, win.

[Kdogg]

What’s new is the municipality’s landfill has now become a revenue stream for the community by mining BTC, while reducing the negative climate effects of the Methane gas. Win, win.

No. Santee Cooper has been doing it in coastal South Carolina (my home) for decades. They have been paying the county all that time. I'm sure it's like that else where. I know BMW has a massive Landfill gas operation in the Upstate.

[PackMan97]

No. Santee Cooper has been doing it in coastal South Carolina (my home) for decades. They have been paying the county all that time. I'm sure it's like that else where. I know BMW has a massive Landfill gas operation in the Upstate.

I fall squarely in the camp that crypto mining is an even bigger waste of energy than trying to convince the fans of a certain rival school of the error of their ways.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I fall squarely in the camp that crypto mining is an even bigger waste of energy than trying to convince the fans of a certain rival school of the error of their ways.

If an energy provider has excess capacity and can negotiate a good deal with the crypto miners to buy it at a good price, then it makes sense. For instance, I very indirectly deal with some energy providers in Washington State for work who produce really low cost hydro-based power so have become a favored destination for crypto miners. Each one is different but at least some have tried to be strategic about how to make this work, sometimes trying to use some form of differentiated pricing so that the crypto miners are paying more than mom and pop or even regular businesses. And since it is hydro, not coal, the climate impact is OK.

But this is the exception, not the rule.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

No. Santee Cooper has been doing it in coastal South Carolina (my home) for decades. They have been paying the county all that time. I'm sure it's like that else where. I know BMW has a massive Landfill gas operation in the Upstate.

I note that you conveniently forgot to bold the “by mining Bitcoin” part of my quote. That’s what’s new.

We have been talking about Bitcoin and energy use in this thread, right?

I don’t think I, or anyone, ever claimed that BTC miners were the first to use landfill methane for energy, or first to pay a municipality for it.

It is new to see BTC doing both.

[Kdogg]

I note that you conveniently forgot to bold the “by mining Bitcoin” part of my quote. That’s what’s new.

We have been talking about Bitcoin and energy use in this thread, right?

I don’t think I, or anyone, ever claimed that BTC miners were the first to use landfill methane for energy, or first to pay a municipality for it.

It is new to see BTC doing both.

I don’t want to argue but these are your words.
“Bitcoin miners found a way to use wasted energy contained in a landfill’s Methane gas.”

Waste gas projects at landfills or from vented methane during oil extraction are a thing. This is just repurposing a preexisting idea but no different than what BMW has been doing for years. And there are consequences of burning Methane but with the current state of the environment it’s a pick your poison situation. Again no problem with the idea. It’s just not something the Bitcoin miners found.

And the reason I bring up things like this is because it seems a little “propagandy.” That kind of marketing (and I am not saying you are the generator) is an obstacle the BTC will have to overcome if it wants universal acceptance.

Also it’s a good business model because even if BTC goes south, they’ve still got a new power plant to make money.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I don’t want to argue but these are your words.
“Bitcoin miners found a way to use wasted energy contained in a landfill’s Methane gas.”

Waste gas projects at landfills or from vented methane during oil extraction are a thing. This is just repurposing a preexisting idea but no different than what BMW has been doing for years. And there are consequences of burning Methane but with the current state of the environment it’s a pick your poison situation. Again no problem with the idea. It’s just not something the Bitcoin miners found.

And the reason I bring up things like this is because it seems a little “propagandy.” That kind of marketing (and I am not saying you are the generator) is an obstacle the BTC will have to overcome if it wants universal acceptance.

Also it’s a good business model because even if BTC goes south, they’ve still got a new power plant to make money.

Many people have been critical of BTC’s energy use, without understanding the necessity of that use for the security of the network.

Bitcoin advocates have steadfastly maintained that BTC is incentivized to seek out the cheapest energy possible and actually finds untapped resources, strengthening energy grids and helping communities in the process.

This companies use of the landfill methane is an example of that.

That’s why I posted it. Moving on.

[snowdenscold]

Many people have been critical of BTC’s energy use, without understanding the necessity of that use for the security of the network.

I think many of the critics do understand how Proof-of-Work functions, and the energy necessity for making it so, and still conclude the whole thing as wasteful.

You've insisted many times that if people simply did enough research, or had enough understanding on how it works, they'd all see the light and come to the same conclusions you have. Please stop insisting this.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Many people have been critical of BTC’s energy use, without understanding the necessity of that use for the security of the network.

Bitcoin advocates have steadfastly maintained that BTC is incentivized to seek out the cheapest energy possible and actually finds untapped resources, strengthening energy grids and helping communities in the process.

This companies use of the landfill methane is an example of that.

That’s why I posted it. Moving on.

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the success of BTC is necessary, and thus justifies any negative externalities. Despite dozens of pages of going back and forth, I don't think I (nor anyone else here) is convinced that BTC is a necessary part of society. We have all been extremely open minded and tried to understand it, but we seem to really be going nowhere. If one wants to think of it as a sort of derivatives financial vehicle for investment and hedging purposes, that is all well and good, but that definitely does not justify the negative parts of it.

Also, despite my description above where the energy usage of bitcoin miners was made into a somewhat optimal situation, that is far from the rule. There are plenty of situations where their energy usage pressures system capacity, and energy providers have to decide whether to invest in constructing more capacity for these miners, knowing that when either a) the whole thing blows up, or b) all of the bitcoin is mined so there is no more need for heavy duty bitcoin mining, this capacity will no longer be needed. These miners don't care about "untapped resources," they care about cheap resources, and if they are burdening those systems, so be it. As I noted above, the smart systems with rate-setting flexibility should then in turn price differentiated these miners and charge them a small fortune for their usage, but they aren't always nimble enough to do this.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the success of BTC is necessary, and thus justifies any negative externalities. Despite dozens of pages of going back and forth, I don't think I (nor anyone else here) is convinced that BTC is a necessary part of society. We have all been extremely open minded and tried to understand it, but we seem to really be going nowhere. If one wants to think of it as a sort of derivatives financial vehicle for investment and hedging purposes, that is all well and good, but that definitely does not justify the negative parts of it.

Also, despite my description above where the energy usage of bitcoin miners was made into a somewhat optimal situation, that is far from the rule. There are plenty of situations where their energy usage pressures system capacity, and energy providers have to decide whether to invest in constructing more capacity for these miners, knowing that when either a) the whole thing blows up, or b) all of the bitcoin is mined so there is no more need for heavy duty bitcoin mining, this capacity will no longer be needed. These miners don't care about "untapped resources," they care about cheap resources, and if they are burdening those systems, so be it. As I noted above, the smart systems with rate-setting flexibility should then in turn price differentiated these miners and charge them a small fortune for their usage, but they aren't always nimble enough to do this.

I’ll bet plenty of people reading this thread continue to have a real interest in Bitcoin and how it can better the worlds financial system, without necessarily commenting in the thread and subjecting themselves to all the negativity some want to dish out here.

You may not be convinced of BTC’s value, and that’s ok, a free market will decide if BTC has any value, not you or me. Feel free to sit this one out.

And BTW, I find it telling that people want to challenge BTC’s free market energy use as wasteful and unnecessary, but not the large data mining energy use of companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc… why can’t BTC just compete fairly for computational energy with these guys, or anybody else?

Here’s how Bitcoin mining works.

There will always be an energy cost to secure the network and “mine” BTC. That’s a good thing.

BTC was designed to use energy for a reason, it’s what gives strength to the network, requiring any attacker to at least match or exceed BTC’s energy use for computations, which as large as the network has become now, makes it cost prohibitive and almost impossible to attack.

The security of the 21 million coins is the number 1 priority for the success of BTC.
Everything revolves around the networks blockchain/ledger keeping track of the coins.
Energy and computer power verifying transactions is what backs Bitcoins value.

Even after the last BTC is mined more than one hundred years from now, there will be transaction fees to support these miners when there is no more BTC left to be added to the market.
BTC will always need a strong energy infrastructure.

Its a great use of energy if you are providing for a better monetary asset, imo.

You are free to disagree and not use Bitcoin, and if enough people agree with you, Bitcoin will fail. So be it. That’s how markets work.

However, at this point, that stance is looking highly unlikely for the future.