In the short term, flexible power production like coal generation gets used to satisfy grid demand during situations with abnormally high power requirements. It has the benefit of being able to be turned on and off practically instantly. There is no economic incentive to build out sustainable generative capacity if it won't be running all the time, and balancing the load on renewable power is awkward (see power price rate inversions for examples of utilities paying people to use excess energy).
I remain unconvinced that cryptocurrency is long term detrimental to clean power generation infrastructure. Quite the contrary, the existence of cryptocurrency to mine acts as a 'productive' sink for power produced in excess of grid baselines. In practice, our entire grid could be renewables in excess of peak demand, and cryptocurrency mining a flexible network load. It could quite possibly get us off of non-clean energy entirely.
Of course this requires cryptocurrencies to have some form of actual utility, which so far isn’t in evidence. Absent this utility, excess renewable energy could simply be stored for later use, ie in chemical batteries or as hydrogen.
What's the incentive to create it without something like Bitcoin mining, which can be deployed practically anywhere with an energy source and internet connection, to balance out the costs of doing so? Even if there are better uses, if we can't transport the energy now then it's pointless to build new stranded energy sources. Bitcoin provides the incentive to start that development now. Maybe in the future, batteries will offer a better use of the energy, and won't we be glad to have the existing energy source as soon as that happens?
You misunderstand the problems with energy production, we already produce excess. The plant produces a fix amount of KwH, wether it's used or not. So some of it isn't used, and is considered excess.
It can be used to do anything, but for some reason you want it to do crypto.
The shady nature of what often goes on in crypto has a lot more to do with human nature than the technology of trustless distributed ledgers.
It's still a wild west out there, and we weren't exactly model citizens during the literal wild west either. It wasn't tamed by people altruistically agreeing to stop robbing each other with their powerful gun technology, but by laws and law enforcement; crypto needs the same, and then we can hopefully eventually enjoy the benefits of the technology, freeing us from the iron grip of ancient scumlords like Visa, MasterCard, PayPal etc.
There's no fundamental law that says a technology must be abused, that's human choice.
(BTW another choice is Bitcoin choosing to stay with extremely wasteful proof of work consensus mechanism, when proof of stake by all indications seems to work too. Again that's not something fundamentally flawed with crypto in general, that's people making greedy decisions because they're balls deep invested in Bitcoin in particular. Right now it's the top dog, but we should hope it won't always be like that if they continue to grossly misuse energy by choice with viable alternatives.)
I find it extremely disappointing how even the HN crowd struggle to distinguish ubiquitous human greed from the problem crypto solves and its potential uses. Just because crypto hasn't broken down your door and forced you to get some benefit from it doesn't mean it's intrinsically useless; if we all ate with chopsticks and knives were mainly known for use in stabbings, it doesn't logically follow that knives are fundamentally a weapon. Give it time and law enforcement, maybe that knife can be good for something else one day.
You still don’t give an obvious use case for cryptocurrencies (beyond the math being interesting). You are right that most technologies are not inherently evil but the same holds for „traditional“ banking including credit. There are plenty of customer-owned banks and there is no reason a transparent, fair and secure alternative to visa couldn’t exist if someone bothered to build it instead of some power hungry crypto scam.
Maybe my hope regarding HN being one of the last places for civilised and nuanced discussion is misplaced, and it sure seems to be changing in recent years.
> ... excess renewable energy could simply be stored for later use, ie in chemical batteries or as hydrogen.
"Simply" implies "in an economically viable fashion" here. Which means that someone has to be willing to pay for (A) building these batteries or electrolyzers and (B) operating them.
Building such systems to an industrially relevant scale hasn't really happened yet. Because it hasn't been economically viable.
Just now they're building a 30 MW electrolyzer near Leuna and it'll be the largest in Europe. Compare that to a regular powerplant which has 1 GW and you'll get an idea that large scale hydrogen synthesis isn't all that near.
Either (A) governments subsidize such systems to a great degree or (B) electricity has to be dirt cheap for a decent fraction of the year (say 50 % or 4400 hours), because if you want to run an electrolyzer, ideally you want to run it 24/7, not every second day at noon because there's cheap PV electricity.
I think (A) is more likely to happen within the next decade than (B), but even when we eventually have these electrolyzers, Bitcoin mining might still be more lucrative.
Non-interdictability and resistance to everything short of thermo-rectal cryptanalysis is actual utility, even if non-USG-approved actors transacting isn't useful to you.
Arguably this is currently more of a bug instead of a feature given it’s used primarily for crime and scams. Government regulation over money flows has legitimate purposes and is not pure repression.
> .. given it’s used primarily for crime and scams.
Often claimed and yet not true.
> Hamas thought it could flout Western surveillance and international sanctions by embracing the world’s leading digital asset. It thought wrong, and the story is illuminating for those who mistakenly believe that bitcoin provides a safe space for criminals, money launderers and the financiers of terror.
Your point of view here seems to neglect energy storage. There is no use for excess renewables that is more productive than storing it for later, when intermittent renewables go offline. Stored renewable energy is the only thing that can replace fossil energy at those times.
This is why billions of dollars are going into storage and transport for renewable energy (batteries, hydrogen, and some outliers like methane and ammonia). Creating any new energy demand, be it flexible or constant, only increases the total amount of renewables we need.
> our entire grid could be renewables in excess of peak demand
Are you hypothesizing about a world where we have more renewables than we can consume at all times? Sure, I guess mine away in that world. In this world, though, it's doing measurable damage.
Energy storage doesn’t just have to be chemical reservoirs like that. Since most residential loads are thermal (heating and cooling of air and water), there’s quite a potential to make improvements there. Other loads are often “deferrable” or advancable.
When electricity is cheap, run the fridge/freezer extra hard, make ice or ultra-heat the water tank. Or “pre-charge” the building extra hot or cool but within level of comfort.
When it’s expensive, maybe slow down the dryer/dish|clothes washing or defer it for some hours. Same for any charging. At the end of the day, I don’t care if my stuff is washed+dry in 50 or 500 minutes most of the time.
> "Why do we need currency when we can just store commodities?"
Did I imply that we don't need or shouldn't have currency? And are you implying that crypto and stored renewable energy should be equivalent priorities?
> You are deeply out of touch with reality if you believe they aren't curtailing capability
"At all times" was the key qualifier to my statement. I'm well aware that excess capacity from intermittent sources is a huge problem and curtailment is the workaround employed these days, which is precisely why I'm saying that storage should be a higher priority than crypto.
Coal generation is typically used for base loads, while gas generation is typically used for peakers. Intuitively, you can think of it like starting or stopping a charcoal vs gas grill. The coals are much more difficult to light, and they stay hot for a long time.
> Quite the contrary, the existence of cryptocurrency to mine acts as a 'productive' sink for power produced in excess of grid baselines
By that logic, any use of electricity is a sink for power, which is ridiculous logic. If you spend millions of dollars in mining equipment, you're not just going to let it sit idle for the 22 hours a day when there isn't any excess electricity. You're going to mine whenever it's profitable. Bitcoin users also need miners to clear transactions and provide security against 51% attacks.
> By that logic, any use of electricity is a sink for power, which is ridiculous logic.
It isn't though. If you're using electricity for heat in the winter and generation is low for a few contiguous days, you can't just turn off everybody's heat. They'd freeze. But you could certainly stop mining Bitcoin for a week out of the year if the cost of electricity that week was high enough to make it unprofitable.
The problem with renewables isn't that they only generate power a small fraction of the time. It's that they generate power most of the time, but most of the time doesn't work for things that need power all of the time. So having things that can consume power most of the time, and thereby fund that amount of generating equipment, allows that consumption to be turned off so that extra generating equipment can service the things that need power all of the time when there is low generation supply.
You can't fully solve this problem with cryptocurrency, but it's because there isn't enough cryptocurrency -- cryptocurrency mining would have to be on the order of half of the power grid on a typical day, which is not going to happen. But it's a thing that can help rather than hurt to the extent that it exists.
The real problem is that we don't price carbon, so then people mine Bitcoin by burning coal. But they also run lights and computers and elevators by burning coal, which is just as bad and has the same solution.
> In the short term, flexible power production like coal generation
Coal power is the least flexible way to generate power.
> It has the benefit of being able to be turned on and off practically instantly.
No, the opposite.
> There is no economic incentive to build out sustainable generative capacity if it won't be running all the time,
Of course there is.
And anyway, the article is about using an old coal power plant to mine bitcoin. 1000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a day, without the bitcoin the plant would have been shut down.
Why do you say coal is the least flexible way to produce energy? As compared to what, hydro, nuclear, solar,…?
The article mentions all the incentives US states have been using to attract Bitcoin mining (after China banned it), so maybe this was a ‘clever’ trick from the fossil fuel industry to keep itself alive. And what is the most flexible load to quickly make use of such incentives? Bitcoin mining it turns out, but it could have been something else. Start pricing the [lb][g]CO2Eq/kWh and then see what will happen.
I thought coal was pretty slow to get ramp up and ramp down. Nat gas (and hydroelectricity) generators are what can be flipped up/down (or on/off) at the flick of a switch pretty much.
I can't speak for others but I'm definitely not blindly following group-think on this. There are countless uses for energy, and the idea that mining crypto is the best possible use for excess renewable power is a bold statement that requires a lot of explanation.
> Don't shun others on subjects you are unfamiliar with. Speak gently and listen.
For someone pointing an awful lot of fingers and making a lot of extremely condescending accusations throughout this thread, I'm surprised you're offering this advice.
I work in the renewable power industry, and my father was a biologist who spent his career trying to mitigate the ecological disasters caused by my state's hydroelectric dams.
The link you've provided suggests that miners and hydroelectric providers could establish mutually beneficial economic partnerships. That hardly needs to be written; it's obvious. But I think if you polled the public on whether creating additional revenue streams for hydroelectric is a higher priority than reducing our overall energy demand -- well, do I even need to suggest what the results would be?
As a realist, I think you understand the fault in this logic. If we can incentivize the production of renewable energy via 'crypto credits' during down time it will alleviate the hesitation of upfront investment.
This idea is the genesis of currency in Mesopotamia. Offsetting seasonal harvests via "tokens" that allow farmers to subsist all year. Storage alone won't solve everything.
Written by "Eric McErlain, Director of External Affairs for GRIID Infrastructure". GRIID "procure[s] low-cost, carbon-free energy to build, manage, and operate a growing portfolio of vertically-integrated bitcoin mining facilities."
Hmm, I wonder why a PR representative for a Cryptomining company would advocate for Cryptomining…
If there is really that much excess capacity, there is plenty of overhead to do something useful with it that actually offsets fossil sources. Like splitting water to create Hydrogen or CO2 capture. It's not a very efficient process, but it doesn't matter if you have that much energy to spare.
If it's really once in a while when it's exceptionally sunny that they do it, there's no point in doing this at all because the cost (and high depreciation) of the mining rigs makes no sense if you don't run them very often.
Either way it's a bad solution to invest energy into some made-up assets, considering how bad the climate crisis already is.
I'm not against crypto per se, but proof of work really needs to die. It's a relic from a bygone worry-free era that will never come back. It will only lead to ever more energy usage. And we will not be out of the woods for a century even if we do do everything possible.
Maximum depth of penetration is the ratio of the densities of the projectile and the matter to be penetrated times the length of the projectile. Harpoons have a higher density than water and are quite long, so they work.
> What about the crops they destroy because they would be less profitable?
To clarify this point specifically, food self sufficiency is considered a national security issue.
Consider the situation where a hostile country floods your market with cheap food products (below cost) until your country's farms go bankrupt due to an inability to compete. Once you stop producing food of your own, you give significant power to whoever controls your food supply.
This is a large part of why agricultural subsidies exist. And yes, sometimes it means paying farmers to let crops rot on the vine in order to not cause market gluts. That is an entirely different situation from futures and hedging, which in any sane market match supply and demand (with the result of minimizing waste).
Not necessarily, if they can produce the crops more cheaply. Since each country ideally wants to secure it's own food supply, it's inevitable that many countries will find themselves subsidizing local production that would otherwise disappear in a competitive international market.
Additionally, hostile countries do not need to flood markets sustainably if the goal is simply to hollow out food production in the target country before taking more overtly hostile (i.e. military) actions.
For moderators, the switch from being able to use third party clients to being forced to use the official reddit client would be like a programmer being told their favorite IDE/text editor can no longer be used for code, and you'll have to get used to notepad or something.
Existing code? Fine! No problems, you can run it like normal. Writing new code? I'm not so sure you will have nearly as many developers willing to work in that ecosystem. Third party applications are part of the core moderation loop of pretty much every subreddit that operates at scale, and depriving those moderators of the tools they use will be to the detriment of the quality of the site.
People saying this won't change much probably haven't tried to moderate at scale using only first party tools. It sucks.
Merkle trees! You (simplified) hash the data at the leaves of the tree, merge adjacent leaves (concatenation for example), and hash the new leaves, until you're left with just the Merkle Root, a single hash representing the entirety of your data. Verifying the root is easier than loading the data itself into memory and hashing it there since you can verify it piecemeal and without loading it all into memory at once.
Each level of the tree contains a hash of the hashes from the level below, so to verify the top hash you need only hash all its children (which are hashes themselves). Then you can explore a child, continuing recursively. At the bottom you find a hash of an actual file (or part of a file), then hash the file to check it’s validity.
This allows you to only hash those parts of the tree you actually want to read.
If you want to verify the entire image, I don’t think you can get around reading the entire image. Because any part you didn’t read to verify the hash is a part that could contain corruption.
Is residential water use really the problem? Relative to agricultural use of water in California, residential water use is a drop in the bucket. Agricultural use of water on its own exceeds the maximum use of water the state can support long run. I can understand the desire to make an impact as an individual, but even dropping residential water use to zero won't do much at all for the problem as it stands. It's a distraction.
Your problem there is that you have agriculture at all, in a desert. Deserts aren't great places to grow food, and in turn the lack of food and water means that deserts aren't great places for people to live.
There's a bootstrap problem to be solved. If you want water, you need ground-covering plants, which need moist loamy soil, which needs water, and so on. For any of this to work you need to start by turning as much grassland as you can get into pasture (with irrigation, sadly, which needs water) and grazing it with livestock, and then kind of building that out over time.
Monoculture arable farming makes deserts. You need to stop doing that.
...okay... but you're wasting that political oomph on a measure that is clearly not going to be effective.
People have limited ceilings for these types of things. Of anything you need to have at least equal measure measure, but preferably greater measure of industrial controls on scarce resource consumption.
Why use a mixer at all? The technology is fundamentally centralized/trust-based, and even assuming a perfectly trustworthy mixer, vulnerable to many forms of analysis (the list of which will only grow as time passes). If you want privacy, use something that actually gives it to you, like Monero.
I'm reminded of this scene from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia. In theory, the goal of the airdrop is to create new users, but in practice the airdrop receivers just cash out their chips and go home.
