Just got the electricity bill. I am mining at home. The electricity company told me that my electricity is about two thirds renewable energy and one fifth nuclear, the rest (exactly 8.2%) is unidentified, perhaps fossil energy. This energy is not cheap, on average 28 cents/kWh, but should I ever reach ROI on the mining appliance, I still have a net gain. If difficulty still rises, I will switch to mining at night only (20 cents/kWh), and even later I will need to speculate on rising prices to justify continuing mining.

It's a hobby, probably not profitable in the end. But hey, FOMO.

It's a 3 page document that makes a number of false assumptions. They extrapolate bitcoin to having 300 billion transactions and means no lightening or L2 solution and the block size would be 3gigs. Nor do they even factor in the halving. Wasn't even researched properly, just utter nonsense for the papers.

And Joe Rogan was showing how easy it is to publish fake papers in journals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZZNvT1vaJg

here is the paper by the way behind a shitty paywall. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8

Full text here: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8

Data & analysis is here: https://github.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/

The argument is:

1. Assume each mining pool's users are in the pool's home country, and use their country's average mix of fuel sources, and use the hardware in supplementary table 1 (which I haven't found), then Bitcoin emitted 69 MtCO2e in 2017.

2. Assume Bitcoin's usage increases at the same rate as a sample of other technologies (television, smart phone, washer+dryer...)

3. Assume that Bitcoin's carbon footprint increases with usage.

Then you can multiply the projected usage by the yearly carbon footprint, and estimate the effect on temperature, at 2°C.

A good counterargument is that Bitcoin's mining footprint is not proportional to usage. It's proportional to price * block reward = profitability.

However, this might balance out in the end. The block reward is decreasing exponentially every 4 years, but the price increases faster than usage. And when the block reward drops to zero, transaction fees will become the sole incentive for mining, which are proportional to usage.

No one because it's a random offhand comment that will be forgotten. Bitcoin mining would obviously transition to use renewables (it mostly does as it is, cheap hydro is what most large scale operations are using), and no one will care.

Why don't we see articles like this for more important bigger problems like plastic waste that won't be solved by renewable energy? Because making random claims about bitcoin STILL somehow gets clicks. And to the top of HN.

Can you expand on this? What makes you sure these predictions won't come true?

Free version: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8