Elon Musk & Tesla dumping Bitcoin for Dogecoin

[LV Koopa]

So are you saying that all of his is lies?

"A single transaction of bitcoin has the same carbon footprint as 680,000 Visa transactions or 51,210 hours of watching YouTube, according to Cambridge’s Centre for Alternative Finances."

"A paper from 2018 from the Oak Ridge Institute in Ohio found that one dollar’s worth of bitcoin took 17 megajoules of energy, more than double the amount of energy it took to mine one dollar’s worth of copper, gold and platinum. Another study from the UK published last year said that computer power required to mine Bitcoin quadrupled in 2019 compared with the year before, and that mining has had an influence in prices in some power and utility markets."

“Bitcoin would not be able to fulfill its role as a secure, global value transfer and storage system without being costly to maintain,” reads a defense against bitcoin criticism from Ria Bhutoria, director of research at Fidelity Digital Assets."

"“Computers and smartphones have much larger carbon footprints than typewriters and telegraphs. Sometimes a technology is so revolutionary and important for humanity that society accepts the tradeoffs,” wrote investor Tyler Winklevoss on Twitter."

So even crypto advocates are admitting it has a giant ecological footprint. That's not too big a deal right now while crypto is a fringe currency that's barely circulated compared to fiat dollars, but if it becomes dominant, then what? Why not address a really serious question?

Yes. Even the stupidity of someone saying a bitcoin transaction has the same carbon footprint as 680,000 Visa transactions should give you pause. For one it means absolutely nothing since most power centers are using renewables and not burning carbon. Secondly because that math should give you serious pause when thinking about magnitude. Visa processes trillions of transactions in a year - think about what you're purporting to be true. If bitcoin is THAT disastrous you should be mapping block chain energy use to electrical activity and price surges. It would then be simple to find out how much it is destroying the environment. None of these arguments show actual environmental impact, just lazy math that on paper makes it seem like a big deal. I could make the argument that toasting bread uses up 17 watts of energy, or 2000 times more energy than boiling water. Therefore, toasting bread has a larger carbon footprint and thus is environmentally more destructive than boiling water - breakfast is bad.

There are several issues with the technology and scale that people seem to keep skipping over.

1.) Bitcoin mining and bitcoin transactions to secure the network are not the same thing. Mining activity is not what it was 10 years ago and most people do not mine bitcoin. THAT is the most power intensive process and it is concentrated in a few places. No one is feeling the effects of bitcoin mining because electricity prices have yet to spike nor do most of us live in China where most mining occurs.

2.) If you want to measure the impact of bitcoin energy use you would compare it to the energy used by to secure fiat transactions. This is much more difficult and takes a bit of imagination to even get them normalized because block chain transactions are "slower" than fiat networks in terms of transaction speed but almost always quicker to confirm. Of course there is also that little problem that the global digital fiat system is much, much larger than the bitcoin block chain and is using up far more energy.

3.) People have been railing about bitcoin (specifically block chain technology) being an ecological disaster for over a decade. Even with mining activity being more concentrated than before, it seems these people miss out that many miners use renewable energies and are located in cheap electrical price areas. Years ago there was a legit debate about American mining groups looking to Indiana iirc because the electrical prices are cheap compared to most places. Other than that, most of these discussions about bitcoin being some ecological disaster are boogie man arguments. Might as well shut down all of our digital payment systems. The only argument that is sensible is that bitcoin isn't purely a P2P system and has become a gambling machine that is harming others with no ability to centralize control.

4.) Bitcoin DOES have an issue with what ASICS chasing has done to the computer chip market. Shortages are everywhere and this is partially due to competition between miners. This is good and bad but overall its skewed demand for chips and that's why PS5s take forever to produce. There is lots of bytching about this and what its done to the price of dedicated GPUs.

Overall while there is legit concern about what block chain competition has done to chip markets, the environmental impact is overblown. Someone living in most parts of the USA feels little effect on energy prices because of bitcoin mining. Nor should they really care.

 

[SadimirPutin]

So are you saying that all of his is lies?

"A single transaction of bitcoin has the same carbon footprint as 680,000 Visa transactions or 51,210 hours of watching YouTube, according to Cambridge’s Centre for Alternative Finances."

"A paper from 2018 from the Oak Ridge Institute in Ohio found that one dollar’s worth of bitcoin took 17 megajoules of energy, more than double the amount of energy it took to mine one dollar’s worth of copper, gold and platinum. Another study from the UK published last year said that computer power required to mine Bitcoin quadrupled in 2019 compared with the year before, and that mining has had an influence in prices in some power and utility markets."

“Bitcoin would not be able to fulfill its role as a secure, global value transfer and storage system without being costly to maintain,” reads a defense against bitcoin criticism from Ria Bhutoria, director of research at Fidelity Digital Assets."

"“Computers and smartphones have much larger carbon footprints than typewriters and telegraphs. Sometimes a technology is so revolutionary and important for humanity that society accepts the tradeoffs,” wrote investor Tyler Winklevoss on Twitter."

So even crypto advocates are admitting it has a giant ecological footprint. That's not too big a deal right now while crypto is a fringe currency that's barely circulated compared to fiat dollars, but if it becomes dominant, then what? Why not address a really serious question?

These shyts are not made with the intention to ever be used as anything other than a speculation tool to transfer wealth from one group to another

 

[LV Koopa]

These shyts are not made with the intention to ever be used as anything other than a speculation tool to transfer wealth from one group to another

Originally not so. But what bitcoin turned into due to greed and the public using it for speculation can't be denied. The block chain is an amazing invention that really is crazy in what it accomplished and the payment system it was supposed to be.

While it still has that function it is also a giant gambling machine like 99% of crypto. And people get their money stolen everyday.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Yes. Even the stupidity of someone saying a bitcoin transaction has the same carbon footprint as 680,000 Visa transactions should give you pause. For one it means absolutely nothing since most power centers are using renewables and not burning carbon.

This is an INSANE perspective. No form of energy is free, everything has a major ecological footprint from the rivers blocked by dams to the precious metals mined to produce solar panels. Claiming that using "renewable" energy doesn't count is fukking ridiculous. Consumption is still consumption.

On top of that, the links I provided suggest that less than 40% of the energy used in crypto is renewable. Most power centers use "some" renewable, but they're using fossil fuels at the same time and often more fossil fuel than renewable.

 

[Uitomy]

This is an INSANE perspective. No form of energy is free, everything has a major ecological footprint from the rivers blocked by dams to the precious metals mined to produce solar panels. Claiming that using "renewable" energy doesn't count is fukking ridiculous. Consumption is still consumption.

On top of that, the links I provided suggest that less than 40% of the energy used in crypto is renewable. Most power centers use "some" renewable, but they're using fossil fuels at the same time and often more fossil fuel than renewable.

Wouldn't crypto make up a very very small percentage of energy use on earth though?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Wouldn't crypto make up a very very small percentage of energy use on earth though?

Crypto currently accounts for about 0.6% of energy use on Earth. That's already a significant amount. That's about the same as the entire nation of Poland or Egypt. Think about that - the ENTIRE fukkING COUNTRY of Egypt, 100 million people doing everything they do in life with cars and farms and industry and homes and planes and boats and a military and shyt, and a tiny % of the world's population speculating with currency on the internet is already using as much energy as that entire country.

Now, that's true right now with crypto still being a mostly fringe pursuit that is used by a relatively small number of people for a relatively small number of purposes. But what happens when it scales up like its advocates wish it to? What happens when 10x as many people get into it? What happens when those people who have crypto start using it for more regular transactions? Imagine how ugly that scale-up gets.

And again, people who dismiss that usually run with "but we're using some renewables and we'll keep trying to use more." Yet that ignores the fact that even renewables have a significant environmental impact that must be accounted for.

 

[Uitomy]

Crypto currently accounts for about 0.6% of energy use on Earth. That's already a significant amount. That's about the same as the entire nation of Poland or Egypt. Think about that - the ENTIRE fukkING COUNTRY of Egypt, 100 million people doing everything they do in life with cars and farms and industry and homes and planes and boats and a military and shyt, and a tiny % of the world's population speculating with currency on the internet is already using as much energy as that entire country.

Now, that's true right now with crypto still being a mostly fringe pursuit that is used by a relatively small number of people for a relatively small number of purposes. But what happens when it scales up like its advocates wish it to? What happens when 10x as many people get into it? What happens when those people who have crypto start using it for more regular transactions? Imagine how ugly that scale-up gets.

And again, people who dismiss that usually run with "but we're using some renewables and we'll keep trying to use more." Yet that ignores the fact that even renewables have a significant environmental impact that must be accounted for.

Won't it just be like the financial sector at that point?

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Won't it just be like the financial sector at that point?

Where would you come to that conclusion? From everything I'm seeing (check the links in the first comment), the energy use by Bitcoin far far outpaces any comparable operation in the financial sector. If it ever takes over the financial sector it will be using far more energy than the energy sector currently does. Bitcoin is extremely energy dependent, even its advocates admit that it requires far more energy than the status quo, they just believe the "extra freedom" justifies the environmental degradation.

 

[karim]

Where would you come to that conclusion? From everything I'm seeing (check the links in the first comment), the energy use by Bitcoin far far outpaces any comparable operation in the financial sector. If it ever takes over the financial sector it will be using far more energy than the energy sector currently does. Bitcoin is extremely energy dependent, even its advocates admit that it requires far more energy than the status quo, they just believe the "extra freedom" justifies the environmental degradation.

Which just means that they don't understand why the high energy dependency is bad. In the end, the negative environmental impact of us continuing to burn fossil fuels at the rate that we currently do will restrict our freedoms far more than what we could ever gain through bitcoin. And that is without taking into account that the idea of the freedom bitcoin is supposed to bring is based on libertarian hallucinations and a profound misunderstanding of government, society and money.

 

[LV Koopa]

This is an INSANE perspective. No form of energy is free, everything has a major ecological footprint from the rivers blocked by dams to the precious metals mined to produce solar panels. Claiming that using "renewable" energy doesn't count is fukking ridiculous. Consumption is still consumption.

On top of that, the links I provided suggest that less than 40% of the energy used in crypto is renewable. Most power centers use "some" renewable, but they're using fossil fuels at the same time and often more fossil fuel than renewable.

It's not. And again - the vast majority of bitcoin mining , over 70% is done in China. No other country even has 10%.

You nor I even feel the effects of this. And I'm 100% sure you don't know how much energy 500 kilojoules actually represents. That's why I gave you the toaster example because like most people you have 0 frame of reference or even the magnitude to compare them.

You don't live in China and neither do 99% of the people complaining. It literally has 0 effect on your life and barely effects the people doing the mining or the energy infrastructure of those cities. Even with only 40% renewable its still not polluting rivers, causing methane blackouts, and destroying the environment on the scale you think it is.

Again, check the math of the actual energy outputs you are quoting and then just simply map them to energy outputs in the largest mining areas. You should be able to find news on environmental disasters and energy grid problems with the obvious blackouts because of bitcoin mining. This hasn't occurred on even a noticeable scale and it still dwarfs the energy use of the digital fiat system. It's a baseless argument.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

It's not. And again - the vast majority of bitcoin mining , over 70% is done in China. No other country even has 10%.

You nor I even feel the effects of this. And I'm 100% sure you don't know how much energy 500 kilojoules actually represents. That's why I gave you the toaster example because like most people you have 0 frame of reference or even the magnitude to compare them.

You don't live in China and neither do 99% of the people complaining. It literally has 0 effect on your life and barely effects the people doing the mining or the energy infrastructure of those cities. Even with only 40% renewable its still not polluting rivers, causing methane blackouts, and destroying the environment on the scale you think it is.

Again, check the math of the actual energy outputs you are quoting and then just simply map them to energy outputs in the largest mining areas. You should be able to find news on environmental disasters and energy grid problems with the obvious blackouts because of bitcoin mining. This hasn't occurred on even a noticeable scale and it still dwarfs the energy use of the digital fiat system. It's a baseless argument.

This is one of the worst "science" arguments I've ever seen on here.

"If it happens in China then it doesn't count!"

"If the Chinese government isn't publicizing environmental problems then they aren't happening!"


Not to mention that if crypto scales up, of course China alone will not be able to handle the energy production.

And I'm 100% sure you don't know how much energy 500 kilojoules actually represents. That's why I gave you the toaster example because like most people you have 0 frame of reference or even the magnitude to compare them.

I'm sure you're "100% sure" on a lot of other wrong shyt too.

 

[LV Koopa]

Good so use your degree and tell us exactly what 500 kilojoukes represents in actual energy output on a scale that everyday people understand.

And then explain how that compares to the energy output used by the fiat system.

You're bullshytting and you don't understand how mining works.

Just lol @ if crypto scales up. Miners can't just plop down in any country and set up shop. Part of the arguments with Proof of Work designs is that they become a barrier to entry as more people adopt it. Combined with the last coins being minted in around 2135 and the block rewards becoming more valuable it takes serious effort to just set up a profitable company. And China is one of the few places you can do so.

Proof of Stake became popular in part because you don't need the energy dependence and can mine for cheaper. But in no way is anyone giving a shyt about environmental impacts of block chain tech. And you can ad hominem and misrepresent my arguments all you want but you nor I live in highly concentrated mining areas and barely anyone of the Chinese miners or people that live in these cities bring this up. Again, your taking concerns other people have and trying to make it a big deal when you have no skin in the game.

 

[Leavingtheecstasy]

Crypto will be fine. You just may have to wait. Which is you've been into crypto is what you've been doing. Holding for more people to jump on.

Buy the dips and you'll be good.

People are very upset about the subject of doge and Elon. He could be bullshytting, or he's letting his ego drive him here and he pushes his way into the crypto space.

I'm betting on the latter. While it's not for a truly altruistic purpose because nothing Elon does Is truly altruistic, he definitely wants to make a mark on the space now. He's getting challenged left and right on this subject and while I do believe this started as a joke he is getting invested. Elon has a massive ego and can't be called on it without fighting back. We've seen that time and time again, that guy must've been bullied or some shyt as a kid he clearly got a bit of trauma stuck in there.

Either way yeah I'm in on doge at a good price too. I'm very confident Elon is going to work on doge and push it. Do I think it will be bigger than btc or some shyt? fukk no lmao. But it's going to become stable and Elon will give it utility with tesla and SpaceX, add that with the meme culture and corporations trying to latch onto that culture to seem "hip".

Boom. You've got a big storm brewing for doge. Idk how high it'll go, but It's hard not to see it jumping up far higher than the price you can get it for right now. It'll jump 20-30 cents on its own once coinbase lists it in a couple weeks.

If Elon does work on it and starts pushing it as the face of a more environmentally friendly coin, all the better. Elon cares about his reputation, and I don't mean what other elites think about him. He cares about the majority of normal people think about him. Idk why, but it's very clear he does. He won't string everyone along and fukk them over with this many eyes watching. He will do something to push the coin forward and make a name in this space. Idk how long that will last, but you will see him having a big impact even if for just this year. I plan on cashing out when that happens.

 

[LV Koopa]

Elon can't "work" on Doge. He doesn't understand the tech, doesn't have access to the original wallet, and if he did he'd be in trouble for SEC violations. He already caught a bit of heat months ago.

 

[Leavingtheecstasy]

Elon can't "work" on Doge. He doesn't understand the tech, doesn't have access to the original wallet, and if he did he'd be in trouble for SEC violations. He already caught a bit of heat months ago.

Why do you just assume he doesn't understand the tech but you do?