Buying a Bitcoin emits 195x as much CO₂ as buying an iPhone
blog.yannev.esThis articles makes absolutely no sense. It uses market capitalisation of Apple and bitcoin to compare the CO2 emissions of an iPhone and a bitcoin transaction which is clearly nonsense. You could calculate the rough CO2 emissions of a 1 BTC transaction by dividing annual estimated CO2 emissions by bitcoin miners (35 million tonnes) by the number of annual transactions (100 million) which equates to about 350kg of CO2.
An iPhone on the other hand produces around 100kg of CO2 to manufacture according to https://www.compareandrecycle.co.uk/blog/iphone-lifecycle-wh...
So in summary it's actually only 3 to 4 times.
And in US$/kg Bitcoin is a real deal. At $50,000 that is about $143/kg of CO2 and an iPhone @ $1000 is less than $10/kg of CO2. :-)
I completely agree that using arbitrary numerology to cast shade on a technology you would rather not exist is not very good reasoning, but some folks respond to it so it persists.
> You could calculate the rough CO2 emissions of a 1 BTC transaction by dividing annual estimated CO2 emissions by bitcoin miners (35 million tonnes) by the number of annual transactions (100 million) which equates to about 350kg of CO2.
Even that would be misleading, because the number of transactions is a constant that has little bearing on the amount of work performed. Most of the revenue still comes from block reward, which disappears over time. Transactions fees would not support current levels of work.
If anything the cost of creating a Bitcoin has a carbon footprint, but most Bitcoins haven't been created at current prices and difficulty levels.
Given that creation of a Bitcoin is historically unique event that is certain to cease, it's not really worth losing sleep over in terms of CO2 emissions.
Also, 1 BTC is about 30 iPhones in money. It’s as interesting as saying a holiday consumes more than a bus trip: only CO2 / dollar is interesting. Or equivalent-CO2 “per service provided”.
Because, with all the remaining dollars, you’re not going to destroy them, you’re going to consume other services/products, and if they are heavier in CO2 emissions per dollars in average, we’re not in a better position.
An iPhone is a physical thing. All kinds of different metals were mined/recycled and manufactured and shipped around the world.
A bitcoin transaction is virtual. Some bits have to be flipped. That it is such an energy intensive and environmentally bad clusterfuck is a tragedy.
You don’t know, it may provide a service which is so intense that it’s worth it. The only way to know is to sell it. (If flipping bits weren’t so important, no-one would pay for datacenters).
A bit has to be flipped in a system where no one trusts (or has to trust) each other, that's why it uses energy.
Your calculation is invalid too.
Mining energy is not just used to process a transaction. Miners really do it to generate more BTC. It is the energy of the whole network. You're not including all related activities like the energy used in Apples banking and advertising, flying their employees around etc
Less BTC is generated over time, eventually none at all. The energy usage has no relation to actually performing a transaction. All of the 'BTC energy usage' calculations that talk about future climate change estimations and come up with 'per transaction' values are completely invalid.
"the decision to buy one Bitcoin versus about 29 iPhone 12 Pros emits 195 times as much CO₂"
The headline made it sound like 195x a single iPhone...
The Bitcoin CO₂ is some made up measure anyway, mining interest for a year isn't really attributable to the market cap of Bitcoin (they feed back on each other and so on, but there's no direct relationship).
If I read only this sentence I understand that a bitcoin emits 195*29 more CO2 than an iPhone.
But he got 195 by multiplying 29 by 6.7. And 6.7 is the ratio between bitcoin and Apple CO2 emissions.
I'm not convinced that any of this computation is meaningful. We don't need this to prove that bitcoin is a waste of energy.
you're right, I reworded that incorrectly - now updated, thanks for spotting it!
No you... didn't? The headline is "Buying a Bitcoin emits 195x as much CO₂ as buying an iPhone" on both HN and Medium.
"...with regards to NFTs we will see PoW take precedence since it reduces fraud."
This is a massive assumption, and likely wrong. From Ethereum to Cardano and beyond, NFT's are almost exclusively being created on smart contract platforms that either already utilize PoS or are transitioning to it quickly. So the idea that PoW will take precedent in the NFT space.. how?
Regarding fraud, is that to suggest PoS is not secure? Also a massive assumption and likely wrong.
> Does that mean cryptoassets are doomed technology? No, this spells the need for established institutions to adopt and support crypto. The demand is there. Meanwhile, we need to be more cautious of the actors we currently enable in crypto networks and the corners they’re willing to cut in the pursuit of profit.
Exactly. Everyone that matters is putting their energy towards creating incentives and software that allows for similar security and confidence of crypto networks, while using less energy.
> The demand is there.
Let's talk when covid is over. It wouldn't be the first time it drops 80%
1. COVID-19 isn’t going to be “over” in any conventional sense any time soon. There are too many cases and too many variants.
2. With billions of institutional money and billions more waiting until ETFs in the US are approved, Bitcoin has something it didn’t have back in the day: a floor.
The days of 80% drops are over.
> The days of 80% drops are over.
I suppose the NASDAQ only lost 75% from Feb 2000 to Sept 2002. Granted, it got back to its 2000 peak 15 years later. My point is that even normal companies traded publicly, held by institutional investors, with government oversight, see large drops after an asset bubble. I see no reason why bitcoin ETFs establish a floor price.
> The days of 80% drops are over.
The days of 80% "over night" drops may be over, but a bear market to wipe 80% off the market cap is not out of the question.
Already a few billionaires with algos that autobuy on 10-15% drops, this number will increase.
We aren't dealing with cs hobbyists, retail investors, and small nest eggs anymore, billionaire adoption is a game changer as Michael Saylor constantly points out...
Welcome to BTC cantillonaires with access to ~unlimited leverage courtesy of central banks.
If you have unlimited leverage to buy Bitcoin, you have unlimited leverage to buy any other asset.
All the billionaires in the world are worth 11 trillion dollars. How much are they realistically going to allocate to Bitcoin, to support a >1 trillion market cap?
Bitcoin is like gold in that it just "sits there", it doesn't do any work. If gold can drop 30% over a few months, despite all the pandemic fears, then Bitcoin can drop 80% for just not being that interesting anymore, compared to other assets.
>If you have unlimited leverage to buy Bitcoin, you have unlimited leverage to buy any other asset.
The hardest, most inflation protected and liquid asset wins. Bitcoin.
>How much are they realistically going to allocate to Bitcoin, to support a >1 trillion market cap?
Bitcoins adoption example = make BTC just 1% of your portfolio, wait, that 1% is now worth more than the other 50% of your portfolio...you can guess what happens next if trend continuation is expected. Two words, "Ape In".
>Bitcoin is like gold in that it just "sits there", it doesn't do any work.
Lossless store of value is "work"...if your billion dollar nest egg in fiat is losing 10-20% per year due to currency debasement, assets that result in not losing that $200M aren't doing valuable work?
Bitcoin has a Number Go Up monetary policy and other properties that are unrivaled. Losing interest really isn't in the cards since this network is scheduled to start demolishing larger and larger central banks around the world and hoovering up value...
> The hardest, most inflation protected and liquid asset wins. Bitcoin.
Bitcoin realistically isn't any more liquid than an ETF, you need to go through similar on/off ramps, and the tax considerations are also comparable.
> Two words, "Ape In".
"Ape in" can lead to "chimp out".
> Lossless store of value is "work"...if your billion dollar nest egg in fiat is losing 10-20% per year due to currency debasement, assets that result in not losing that $200M aren't doing valuable work?
What I mean by "not doing work" is that one Bitcoin stays one Bitcoin over time. A company can grow and pay dividend. Real estate has people working to pay for its rent. Currency debasement affects all asset classes, including stock and real estate.
Then the question becomes: Why would you put money in an asset that doesn't do any work? The answer is that you want to be decorrelated from certain risk. This is a fair argument for Bitcoin (or gold) in terms of portfolio diversification, but it's not a good argument for a large allocation.
>Bitcoin realistically isn't any more liquid than an ETF, you need to go through similar on/off ramps, and the tax considerations are also comparable.
The on and off ramps are heavily limited in ETFs. Bitcoin can be purchased/sold P2P without counterparty or exchange custody risk. Many ETFs regularly miss the inflation hurdle, all ETFs are not permissionless, and can go bankrupt. Also, have you ever tried selling an ETF at 2am on a Saturday?
>A company can grow and pay dividend. Real estate has people working to pay for its rent. Currency debasement affects all asset classes, including stock and real estate.
Real estate/company resale market isn't as liquid as bitcoin's and they are not immune from catastrophic failure, degradation over time, or agency related downside risks. Also, ever tried selling a $200M home/company on a Saturday at 2am?
For comparison, anyone can liquidate $200M of Bitcoin in 10-20 minutes and top exchange order books are thick enough to absorb that volume with little price slippage.
You are trying to separate the unique combination of properties bitcoin has and individually address them with an alternate asset. The real work you have to do is find an asset with all of the valuable properties mentioned, working in unison, that also wins the hardest money contest. Unfortunately, you can't and that's why bitcoin wins as a store of value, especially over a long time horizon.
TLDR Every asset is a shitcoin compared to "Energy Money" aka Bitcoin. Price action and growing depth of market proves that.
> Bitcoin can be purchased/sold P2P without counterparty or exchange custody risk.
By definition, you can't exchange Bitcoin for dollars without counterparty risk. Technically you can exchange it over-the-counter or with some guy in a shady alley, but few are willing to do this.
> Real estate/company resale market isn't as liquid as bitcoin's and they are not immune from catastrophic failure, degradation over time, or agency related downside risks. Also, ever tried selling a $200M home/company on a Saturday at 2am?
True, real estate isn't as liquid, but compared to stock, you can live in it and may have some tax advantages. You can have stocks and real estate, you don't really need Bitcoin in the picture.
> You are trying to separate the unique combination of properties bitcoin has and individually address them with an alternate asset. The real work you have to do is find an asset with all of the valuable properties mentioned, working in unison, that also wins the hardest money contest. Unfortunately, you can't and that's why bitcoin wins as a store of value, especially over a long time horizon.
I'm looking at it from an investment perspective, because you are arguing that all the billionaires are going to "ape in". Bitcoin may have all these properties and still be not interesting as a large allocation. The "hardest money contest" doesn't matter, because holding money is not the point of investment.
> Price action and growing depth of market proves that.
Price action doesn't prove anything. Bitcoin can still drop 10+% in a single day.
Vaccines are getting people to not get hospitalized anymore mostly, no matter the variant.
If you can't see that crypto only raised because of covid and things related to that, you should really check the timelines.
We've been through this story already in 2017, when stores tried to adopt crypto payments and it was unsuccessfull ( square, steam, woocommerce, ... ). It went from 20 k to ~4 k.
Nothing fundamentally changed, payments with crypto are practically zero offline and online.
Some people just have some percentage in it, because they think of it as value store.
And if digital currency would be adopted by countries, they are not going to take any of the excisting ones, but their own variant.
Change my mind with logic reasoning :), not emotionally because you want to protect your assets.
And it wouldn't be the first time it rebounded.
This response doesn’t make any sense. It’s not pulling back right now.
Why would Covid drive up the price of Bitcoin? Sure, the pandemic is being used for attempted government power grasps, but those won't go away with Covid.
Halfway the same thing that's driving the prices of stocks and pokemon cards: people with extra cash from stimulus checks, spare time, and fomo. "Crypto being the future of finance" is a story people tell themselves to justify the price of bitcoin, and while some flavor of blockchain tech could someday back parts of finance, it won't be bitcoin. Buying bitcoin is a bet that more people will buy bitcoin.
Ok I forgot about the money printing, which may or may not stop after Covid. But I think people buy BTC as an alternativ to gold, not because of some banking narrative. The question is still what would be actually good investments. Maybe everything will crash when the money printing stops, but then some things will crash harder than others. Gold will probably remain gold.
> people buy BTC as an alternative to gold
That's a reasonable premise, but the price of gold is flat YoY. Gold actually peaked in Aug. 2020. You'd think that at least some of the bitcoin interest would have gone to gold, but it hasn't. Maybe people are selling gold to buy bitcoin, but again, they don't act similarly. Bitcoin is a speculative asset that has so far gone to the moon. Gold has maintained its value for centuries. You buy them for different reasons.
> The question is still what would be actually good investments
Not bitcoin. It's a speculative asset. It might still 10x, but it has no fundamentals; it's entirely a bet on what other people will do with bitcoin. You could say buying AAPL is the same, but it makes $90B per year. If bitcoin goes to zero, you're out of luck. If AAPL goes to 0 for no apparent reason, you just found an asset that makes you $90B per year.
> Gold actually peaked in Aug. 2020. You'd think that at least some of the bitcoin interest would have gone to gold, but it hasn't. Maybe people are selling gold to buy bitcoin, but again, they don't act similarly.
To add to this discussion, gold traded range bound for 20 years from 1980 to 2000, across many different economic realities, across several different Federal Reserve money supply increasing policies, in slow bleeding downtrends for half a decade or more, over and over again.
Gold as a perma-bull meme mostly culminates with a Gold ETF being approved. Which took a long time for the SEC to approve as well. The SEC just doesn't like commodity trusts split into shares, and they still don't like digital commodity trusts.
Gold perma-bull's latch on to that as price correction and returning to an arbitrary correlation, and that's what they will say 20 years from now too, even though the point wasn't to live your entire life not making any money. Pick your battles wisely. Are you part of the market that just wants exposure to the price of something to preserve your generational wealth, are you part of the market that wants something that's harder to seize, or are you part of the market that really is here to wait around for gold to rally to $5,000 two decades after your favorite youtuber said it was supposed to while its price ignored every macroeconomic reality that was supposed to be relevant.
Personally, I would consider gold as an insurance. The current price does not matter that much. What matters that in case of a catastrophe (financial crash, system crash, socialist takeover, whatever), it would be valuable. I would assume that in case of a system crash, gold would be more likely to retain some value than most other assets. Like think socialist takeover - all other assets (real estate, company stock) would be devaluated over night.
Same, that's why I have some. Not a lot, but some, in case SHTF.
I think you are right, the "small fish" are buying Bitcoin hoping for speculative gains, but also big fish are buying it to hedge against inflation. I don't think Tesla bought Bitcoin speculating on big price rises, for example.
It also seems true that hedging against inflation (and socialism and so on) would also be expected to rise the price of gold - but a peak in August 2020 seems consistent with the hedging theory. Also, Bitcoin is easier to smuggle across borders than gold. Maybe it really is taking over. Or maybe the big fish already have so much gold that they want to diversify a bit.
AAPL actually produces stuff, but it probably isn't completely risk free, either? People could become too poor to afford their asking prices, and while it may not crash to zero, it could crash enough to hurt (given that it probably is also quite expensive atm).
> Tesla
I don't disagree with your point, but I also wouldn't read much into what the 420-pedoguy-not-a-flamethrower-autopilot-manchild does.
I have to read up on Musk, didn't get any of those references :-) Anyway, just because he does some investment, doesn't mean it is a good one. It just shows that people do use BTC as a hedge.
Gold hasc always kept it's value.
Bitcoin dropped from 20k to 4k until covid hit over multiple years.
Bitcoin isn't gold. That was already debunked.
I feel like it's really easy to pin bitcoin on its energy usage just because it's so easily measurable. Is there any research that compares a traditional banking platform in terms of W/tx in comparison to bitcoin?
Thought experiment - Bitcoin supports fewer transactions than are needed for a mid-sized town, yet uses more power than most small countries.
The upper limit of the amount of power a country’s financial system could use is the power footprint of that country. Likely the real usage is a small percentage of that, but that’s the upper limit.
Now, given Bitcoin uses more power than countries of millions, but supports the transaction load of a few hundred thousand, do you think it is the slightest bit possible your comparison would come out favourable to Bitcoin?
Bitcoins are produced and secured through the mining process. It doesnt just process a transaction.
Dollars are backed and secured by the USA. How much energy does the USA military use?
That's not just to secure the value of dollars, your comparison is meaningless. Also, reapply the thought experiment above - BTC is used by a handful of people, yet consumes more than countries of millions.
The total market value of BTC is higher than the Russian Ruble. It is securing a lot of value. https://coinmarketcap.com/fiat-currencies/
>That's not just to secure the value of dollars, your comparison is meaningless.
Yes the calculation is not complete, but it demonstrates that the other calculations are completely invalid too because it doesn't consider those factors either
The question was what are the efficiencies per transaction.
The total market cap of a cryptocurrency is a somewhat meaningless statistic, it certainly doesn't directly translate to value.
> The question was what are the efficiencies per transaction.
Yes and the calculations are all completely invalid. Not sure what you are missing.
You need a whole infrastructure to power a transaction. That means an asset with value, a secure way to broadcast it, for other people to see it, etc. Running the infrastructure and securing it is absurdly expensive for the traditional system; they are even employing perhaps millions of people to run the worldwide network. The human cost is extreme but you are limiting the discussion to energy expended. Unless you consider all this how can you put the energy usage of BTC in context? This is especially true since a system like BTC, the energy used is not even proportional to the number of transactions that are processed. Extrapolations don't even consider that the mining reward is motivating miners but it will disappear completely in future - i.e. the energy is being used to build a system and distribute assets that can exist for endless years. All the logic is a joke
It's like saying it's cheaper to solve an equation by hand than to build software that can do it automatically. But doing it by hand requires human intervention, while that one-time cost of building the software can automate the work, be adapted for myriad usecases and run for the next 1000 years
The consequences of expending the energy to create and distribute this 'unit of account' is profound and incalculable, even if one wants to argue that a decentralised financial system with mass surveillance like BTC will have a negative impact on society
The aim wasn't for it to be favourable to bitcoin. I'd honestly just like a comparison.
Not bank transfers, but https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption says
> 778,988 - The number of VISA transactions that could be powered by the energy consumed for a single Bitcoin transaction on average (1157.81 kWh).
Obviously bank transactions would also come out way ahead, those are essentially a DB update built on trust and for speed, whereas proof-of-work is severely inefficient by design.
VISA is a credit based system, Bitcoin transation is counterparty free. Transferring gold between countries would be a much more interesting comparision, as gold is the main competitor for Bitcoin.
Wow! That's what I was looking for. Thanks!
It's not that power intensive to do a BTC transaction (although the requirement for every full node to duplicate the work kinda limits its relative efficiency). What drives up the power usage is the way miners compete for new bitcoins. 25 new bitcoins are minted every ~10 minutes, and 1 BTC is worth 56,378.78 USD right now, so the miners can collectively spend up $1.4 million (in electricity, hardware depreciation, etc) every ten minutes and still break even.
> 25 new bitcoins are minted every ~10 minutes
Current block reward is 6.25 and it will be half that by 2025.
Oh, huh... I thought I might have missed one halving, but not two!
It gets pretty thorny because you have to be careful about what aspects of traditional platforms correspond to the problems addressed by bitcoins. Some folks will try to compare the electricity usage of Visa to that of Bitcoin for example, even though Bitcoin doesn't provide low-latency payments and Visa doesn't provide distributed consensus.
Another easy thing to measure about Bitcoin is its economic value. You can readily assess the market capitalization, and you can also examine the blockchain to see precisely how much it cost users to conduct the transactions in recent blocks. The bottom line for me is that the miners aren't working for charity; they are taking fees+reward >= their electricity cost, and this is paid for by the users of Bitcoin. So those who criticize Bitcoin as an environmental catastrophe might as well say the same thing about YouTube, Aluminum production, or modern industry more generally.
It's just a particularly easy target because many people find the economic importance of Bitcoin and the recent development of the same mystifying.
You don't need detailed research because a little back-of-the-napkin math shows that it's way too much.
A comparison I found recently is that Bitcoin uses 10x as much electricity as Google.
Why is this? Well, you can think of Bitcoin as giving away prize money to miners who win a contest. Currently they are giving away over $50 million in Bitcoin every day. [1] The electricity spend by miners is capped by the amount of prize money.
Why so much? It wasn't planned. The bug in Bitcoin's algorithm is that energy usage is proportional to market price, and the amount it went up wasn't anticipated. If Bitcoin crashed to a tenth of its current market value, it would be about even with Google. That's still way too much for what it does. Maybe it should crash to 1% its current price, to be reasonable?
Besides a market crash, the other way to fix it would be speeding up the schedule for lowering miner awards. It's going to drop in half this month, but there's no principled reason to wait another four years for the reward to drop in half again. But good luck getting consensus for that. More revenue is better than less revenue and miners don't want the prize money to drop.
Another comparison: Musk sponsored a $100 million X Prize for inventing carbon capture technology. That's a very big prize for an important cause, and it's only 2 days of Bitcoin prize money.
The Bitcoin prizes are too damn high.
[1] https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_miners_revenue_per_da... [2] https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk
> Besides a market crash, the other way to fix it would be speeding up the schedule for lowering miner awards.
That doesn't really fix it, because transaction fees will start to dominate the block subsidy within 4 halvings or so.
We can napkin math the best case comparison for Bitcoin. According to the BLS [1], the entire financial industry employs approximately 2.6% of the US population. Bitcoin's energy consumption is about 129TWh, or ~3% of total US energy consumption. In reality, the population proportional slice of national energy consumption probably vastly overweights the finance industry's direct energy usage and the US is particularly inefficient compared to most countries in per-capita energy consumption. Not to mention, that's the entire financial system. Bitcoin only uses that to run the network, which is a miniscule portion of what the other side is handling.
I was a bit disappointed in the article given the headline. The analytical methodology used here is a bit odd to me, and there was no explanation as to why this methodology was used.
I still don’t know how much incremental CO2 is emitted from buying a Bitcoin or an iPhone after reading it. All I see is a weird CO2 divided by market cap calculation...
Does anyone else have good data on the incremental CO2 emissions from either of these?
> Does anyone else have good data on the incremental CO2 emissions from either of these?
Virtually none. Bitcoins get mined with or without transactions, as long as the expected block reward exceeds operating costs, work will be performed. The amount of transactions is fixed (or rather capped), transaction fees are a fraction of block rewards. By performing a transaction, you are bidding up the price for a transaction. Therefore, in aggregate, you are helping keep those miners in the game that are just about to become unprofitable.
For bitcoin you'd probably not be able to really determine it.
One component would be reasonably straightforward, take the fee paid for the transaction and divide it by the block reward it appears in, it's arguably directly responsible for that percentage of the emissions related to that block.
The other potential component would be any impact on the value of bitcoin due to the transaction. It's likely close enough to zero most of the time, but when it isn't zero it's gonna be a doozy.
The title should be 195x as much CO2 as producing an iPhone. In regards of buying and if you are drawing a comparison with fiat currencies you should take into consideration the environmental impact for producing, circulating and securing the money that is used for the transaction.
Nobody ever talks about what is around fiat, ATMs, money counting machines, heavy armoured vehicles moving them around, etc.
Actually the costs to mine a block on the blockchain are the same, no matter if somebody buys a Bitcoin or not. At most you could argue that driving up the price gives miners an incentive to mine more.
It's not only about emitting CO2, it's also about wasting the earth's surface to produce electricity, such as damming rivers or plastering it with solar panels, or mining for resources to fabricate the bitcoin-mining hardware (which needs to be replaced every few years). The problem will be increasing as the price of BTC goes up. It's a tragedy of the commons.
How can this be calculated? I mean, it's possible to use solar energy for running mining equipment.
Using solar energy "pollutes" also the environment.
1. Less energy is available for other demands. They have to be filled up with other energy sources. (Assuming, that they do not use their own panels for mining.)
2. Producing solar panels produces CO2
Use the overall distribution of generation sources for the electric grid?
It's probably all bullshit. There are papers by professors of music studies claiming listening to streaming services wastes a gigazillion of CO2. It's all just back of the napkin estimates.
Ha. Reminds me of the old warning message that used to come up in rn when you posted something to USENET:
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing.
Apple operates at pretty comfortable profit margins. At one time it was the most profitable company in the world. I'm not sure this comparison is fair - Apple is famous for creating highly valuable outputs with relatively minimal inputs.
This comparison is just for fun, but there seems to be some buzz about Bitcoin not being environmentally friendly I don't know why people are all grumpy about Bitcoin, there are a lot of things that we waste energy on.
Maybe if the world governments were a bit more responsible with their currencies then there wouldn't be a need for Bitcoin. It was a direct response to the outrageous actions taken after the '07 crisis.
Bitcoin doesn’t waste energy—https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-does-not-waste-en...
The higher the price BTC go, the more miners will mine to get it near break even. Imagine 600k price where some pumpers are targeting, you are looking at potentially 10x the energy used to mine blocks. Is that a correct characterization of the problem at hand?
If Bitcoin reaches those prices, it would have twice the market cap of all gold and significant % of global wealth, so that energy would be well spent to secure all that wealth.
When Hackernews becomes full on irresponsibly bullish on all things crypto - this is when you sell ALL your crypto.
That's the only thing I have learned from this forum, by far the best counter-indicator.
Judging by all the comments I've seen on here I'm pretty sure that's never going to happen, so I guess Bitcoin is now in a permanent bull market.
I’m trying to understand this. The value of the “emission” would fluctuate with the value of the coin? But the wording is weird. How is “buying a Bitcoin” generating 195x co2 compared to x? The mining of Bitcoin has already happened. That emission is over for that Bitcoin after it has been mined. And tying either Bitcoin emission values to capital values. Or iphone emission values to Apples capital value also doesn’t seem very intuitive. What’s the point?
But one lasts forever and the other is wasted in 2-3 years?
Forever sitting in your wallet, because its an "investment" and cannot be spent normally?
It’s an asset. So I suppose I wouldnt really compare it to cash or ATM card. I’d compare it to a bar of gold or real-estate. But unlike either of those it can be easily spent.
And unlike Bitcoin you use your iPhone everyday...
It seems like everyone talks about Climate Change but when it comes down to it. Money Rules.
Only if you buy one at a time. Trying buying in bulk.
I personally don't have the cash to buy more than one and I feel like a lot of the point of cryptocurrency is that individuals don't have to trust a financial institution.