Bitcoin network use a lot of energy. Ok compared to what?
Discussion
Using energy is a sign of technology advancement.
Using more energy is better because we achieve more.
Also,
the total power consumption per card transaction is nearly 1.8Wh
Interesting. Do you have a source for that?
Thank you, very useful đ
Think it was Saifedean who noted that slavery pretty much ended as humans were able to harness fossil fuel energy because we could do so much more with machine output than human labour.
That half the world wants to revert to wind and solar because of âmuh climateâ shows how stupid and easily manipulated people can be.
I want solar panels because I want to be self sovereign for my energy.
Also we get a lot of power cuts in our village (about 2 - 4 a year) so having battery backup is very useful. Currently only my router and nodes are UPSâd.
At the edge, theyâre useful.
The problem is that modern grids are run from the core and inserting these technologies into the centre of grids which year over year experience higher demand is a recipe for disaster.
Itâs being done purely for ideological reasons rather than practical, let alone countenancing the opposing ethics of wanting human flourishing through abundant energy.
Not entirely true.
Again another former life and a previous rabbit hole I've spent years down, which I'd prefer not to revisit, but no.
The TL;DR is:
Planet saving aside, fossil fuels are a one time use power source that will run out.
Until we reach a type 2 civilisation, we are required to harness energy indirectly from from the sun (the only source of power in our solar system).
Even nuclear fusion is technically burning stuff (or creating entropy) depending on your view point.
Where politics and agenda affect that first principles direction is that in the UK, wind is a far better, more efficient and reliable a power source than solar, but because of lobbyists and small scale inefficiencies of wind, solar has become the less efficient, but much more widespread adopted path.
This is wrong, but will still work along with nuclear fission and fusion of which I am directly involved from a previous life.
>âfossil fuels are a one time use power source that will run out.â
I donât believe this is true.
Known resources have hundreds/thousands of years of reserves, more comes online as itâs more economical so the idea that this is a problem that people alive today need to consider doesnât make sense.
If the US didnât introduce the petrodollar in the 70s weâd likely have abundant nuclear energy around the world with 55 years of build out and development behind it today leading to next generation technologies - history shows humanity develop better energy technology by using the previous wave and iterating with that energy and that was curbstomped by the US. They alone are responsible for curtailing global energy expansion to protect their fiat shitcoin.
People should be disgusted with what the Americans have imposed on the rest of us so they could live at our expense by exporting inflation to the world.
And Iâm skeptical of the one time use claim. The science of oil and gas production coming from ancient carbon deposits is dubious at minimum. Whether the abiotic oil theory is correct is beyond me but I know that all the calls of peak oil and X years until Y resource is depleted have all proved to be bullshit.
If you want humanity to progress it needs energy. We should be using the most abundant sources to the max and constantly iterating to get more energy online.
Iâm bullish that Bitcoin will force this on humanity and destroy all these doomer Malthusian narratives that we need to be conserving resources - no, we need MOAR POWAH!
You just said you didn't believe me, you then argued a timeline which I didn't discuss and doesn't disprove my statement.
My understanding of the Geneva convention on the use of TL;DR in discussions is that moot points and false fallacies become illegal to use once declared đ
I'm going to combine Adam Back's stance with Roger Ver, along with Satoshi's approach:
"If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry."
I have the time, but I did this professionally for 8 years, where the outcome mattered, so I don't have the inclination to do this now, for no return.
Happy to discuss Bitcoin, but I'll leave the energy discussions in my history books.
I wasnât trying to disprove your statement but rather was disagreeing with your base premise.
I can point you to a few thousand economists each with decades of experience behind them who donât actually have the first clue of what is happening with the economy because their entire knowledgebase (Keynesianism) is built on faulty foundations; but theyâre certain theyâre right all the same.
Just because âexpertsâ think they know something, it doesnât mean they do (and yes that applies to me too), especially when their foundational understanding of the field is built atop sandcastles.
So Iâm not claiming you know nothing nor that I know it all, rather I am saying I donât believe the âscienceâ around energy production based on the repeated failures of expert predictions - when reality denies expert claims they are not just to be blindly believed.
What I am claiming is that humanity would be better off harnessing as much energy as it can readily/economically get its hands on and leveraging that into iterating better energy tech. We have instead stagnated entirely because of the US.
Wind and solar are NOT the most productive energy sources by any measure whatsoever - they are a step backwards embraced politically out of climate cultism ideology. They are not suitable for where humanity is and their embrace will set us back even further than the USâ curtailing of nuclear did which is societal suicide.
I don't think wind and solar are step backwards.
I think it's more like: when we arrive that city 10000kms away, we will have lunch in this restaurant.
So let's drop this useless bags full of supplies. We're not gonna need them.
Wind and solar demonstrably output less energy for capital investment today than any other form of energy.
Nuclear outputs shit tons more with its longer lifecycle.
Going to denser energy forms that the US blocked was my original point. Weâre missing 50 years of scientific advances in nuclear because of the petrodollar and if we had them even raising solar and wind would look retarded; like advocating for the abacus as the best way to advance mathematics when we have 3nm microprocessors already.
The harm inflicted by the petrodollar isnt just monetary. It fucked our whole tech tree. This is what the PayPal mafia have realised and put their energy towards.
You might not like them or their paths forward but they have understood the problems correctly.
I agree.
My point was that I see a future where (some sort of) baterry systems and solar/wind power will have its place.
We are nowhere close to that.
Fusion/fission has the same probability from my POV. Nice target, not something to push.
Weâre closer to that because of the cultâs government subsidies and yet the tech has barely advanced at all. Itâs still nowhere close to nuclear even without the 55 years of development we should have had.
If people accepted solar/wind as edge solutions to decentralise energy generation rather than demanding it become the backbone of modern energy infrastructure because itâs so âcleanâ to placate the cult, it might actually progress.
Fiat incentives give fiat outcomes though.
Nuclear is great when things are stable, it's a disaster waiting to happen in widespread unrest, war & natural disasters unless you use a very specific subset of it.
And you know damned well they won't build the versions they should build.
Humanity isnt aligned so I wouldnât expect them to.
People accept the status quo of nation states with the George H Bush ânew world orderâ as if thatâs just the path we should be on, rather than the one we happen to be on because of US decisions decades ago which raped everything downstream.
If youâre long humanity you are long the idea that humanity can coalesce around certain primitives including not destroying itself.
Just because thatâs not the current path doesnt mean thatâs not where we ought go, nor that we canât get there.
These parasites wonât top the tree forever. I donât think theyâll top it much longer.
The bigger problem IMO is the lack of alternative visions to coalesce around.
Last 20 or so years gave me hope that there is an alternative.
And I agree that this system will fall apart rather soon. No more then 50 years is my guestimate.
Just don't know if it will be Mad Max or Cyberpunk.
When you say the US it is a bit more complicated. every year the military would visit my elementary and high school science class extolling the virtues of nuclear energy.
No it really isnât.
You know all that shit thatâs coming out about USAID right now? Thatâs the same shit your regime used to fund the likes of Greenpeace who got nuclear power banned by legislation in Australia.
For 20+ years nuclear power has been made illegal here.
It wasnât some grassroots movement that did that - it was your cunt regime that pushed it all.
Weâre investing hundreds of millions in nuclear powered subs under AUKUS because the US wants Aus to project power into the South China Sea but we canât have nuclear energy - despite our massive uranium deposits, amongst the biggest on earth - because your regime needs us under your thumb against China.
You may have had the virtues extolled to you - I had signs in my neighbourhood saying nuclear power is banned here in 2008.
Your country is behind so much shit that if you understood what youâre responsible for youd throw up.
Lets make this clear, the majority require the densest energy sources so civ doesn't collapse & kill their useless asses.
That doesn't mean the scumbags having enough energy to run all their spy toys is in the best interests of the rest of us who don't require it to survive...