Researchers have calculated, or approximated, the cost of creating bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies. Then compared said cryptocurrency costs vs the cost of real actual mining for minerals. Mining bitcoins etc requires more power then most actual mining such as actual gold. An average bitcoin-dollar, or if you will a dollar worth of a bitcoin, is calculated to require about 17 megajoule of energy, while digging up a dollar worth gold requires 5 megajoule. Aluminum is still a lot more expensive then most of the cryptocoins to produce as it requires a massive 122 megajoule to create a dollar worth of.
The Carbon dioxide creation due to cryptocurrencies mining is also estimated to be between 3 and 15 million tonnes, between January 2016 and June 2018. But a Chinese bitcoin emits four times as much CO2 as a Canadian one, so it is highly dependent on the form of energy used. I didn't find any comparable numbers to how much CO2 is created from the production of Aluminum, Gold or other metals.
Quantification of energy and carbon costs for mining cryptocurrencies
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0152-7
Bitcoin Will Burn the Planet Down. The Question: How Fast?
https://www.wired.com/story/bitcoin-will-burn-planet-down-how-fast/
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Tuesday November 20 2018, @02:11AM (2 children)
Will it be before we learn that the plural of "Joule" is formed by adding a certain snake-shaped letter?
If not, then it's worth it, for the literary (and literacy) advancement.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @03:43AM (1 child)
Adding S is more expensive then not adding it.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday November 20 2018, @03:08PM
And now imagine this thread goes through a hard fork...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Informative) by MostCynical on Tuesday November 20 2018, @02:11AM (1 child)
tl;dr: cryptocurrency mining is really only worth it if you steal the power and don't care about the environmnetal impacts.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 20 2018, @01:08PM
There's a market balance at work here: bitcoins are worth about as much as people put into them, from the other side of the bit: people put nearly as much money into bitcoins as they can get out of them.
Since some people get their energy for cheap, or free (stolen), that drags down on the market value - those people are then willing to sell for less, because it cost them less. Of course, there's an abundant supply of people willing to ignore the future costs of their CO2 emissions, so that doesn't even enter into the crypto-currency valuation equation.
BTC is only down to $5K, where it was about 13 months ago, and 9x where it was 24 months ago, down from a peak around $20K, still somewhat in the speculative froth. It will be interesting to watch what happens as the market value starts to fall below most miners' costs of production. On the other end of the speculative equation, NVDA is having a very hard time going anywhere but down lately.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by legont on Tuesday November 20 2018, @02:55AM (5 children)
because gold mining requires actual mine rights, which are not included. How about the costs of extracting gold from sea water - virtually unlimited and so far free - compared to bitcoin mining?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 20 2018, @06:00AM (4 children)
I've always had problems with mineral rights. I don't think they should be transferrable without the land, really. I own *some* of the mineral rights under my land, but both oil and gravel rights were sold long ago. There really isn't much left, unless I stumble across gold, silver, or copper. Mineral rights were a screwed up idea, IMO. But, since so many people have found ways to make money off of those rights, it's what we have today.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @09:50AM
They aren't even really properly applied. There are whole towns in Gold Country with random sinkholes under areas WITHOUT mineral right grants because in the old days the miners just kept mining until they were too far from their access tunnels, or hit someone else's mines. As a result a lot of land which retained mineral rights is in fact compromised and the minerals extracted deep underneath because nobody could tell when miners were mining outside of their property lines unless they made enough noise for it to travel through a few thousand feet of soil and rock. After 50 to 150 years however erosion, tectonic activity and local weather has caused a lot of those tunnels to collapse, including under central areas of Grass Valley.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday November 21 2018, @01:39AM (2 children)
It's the first time I've heard about gravel rights being separate from the land. How the owner of the rights is supposed to use them without disturbing you on the surface? On the other hand, can you use gavel collected on your land?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 21 2018, @01:53AM (1 child)
The way this works, the county judges bought the rights to the gravel. Anytime they want, they can drive in, and dig up however many truckloads of gravel they want. If the landowner is foolish enough to erect a shed or something of that nature, the shed will be moved if possible, or run over. Building a house, however, will be respected, since you've obviously gone to the county seat, and put all your paperwork in order, and pay taxes on the house.
Years ago, when those rights were sold, the population was a lot lower. Father in law lived here, with his family, and there were like six neighbors within a mile of the house. The road department could drive in, load up gravel, and not bother anyone. An ornery cow might bellow at them, or a free range hog might challenge them. Or, a rattlesnake.
Population density has gone up a lot. There are easily 20 other homes within a mile of my home - maybe 25. I'm too lazy to pace it off, but we have a lot more neighbors than father in law had.
It makes it a little more difficult to overlook the country trucks swooping in whenever they feel like it. But, they are mostly nice guys, and they don't go out of their way to be assholes, so it still works out.
Give it another few decades, and things may change pretty drastically.
Oh - yes, I can take all the gravel I want. The gravel here is a lesser quality for road building than I can get elsewhere though. Or, more accurately, the stuff that is easily accessible has too much fines, and too much clay, too little rock for most casual user's purposes. It's better to go buy either washed gravel, or SP2 or 3.
(Score: 2) by legont on Wednesday November 21 2018, @02:16AM
Wow! Thank you.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @03:22AM
Have nature and wired considered adding up all the CO2 emitted due to the unnecessary crap on their webpages? I once compared current reddit.com to i.reddit.com (which is perfectly capable of conveying the desired info) and even just the waste from that single (albiet large) site was about the same amount of electricity used as bitcoin. Neither were anything approaching rounding errors compared to addressable grid and power plant inefficiencies.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Sulla on Tuesday November 20 2018, @07:35AM
Beautiful Clean American Crypto. We can make crypto here in the US and sell it elsewhere and put tariffs on foreign dirty crypto.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @08:29AM (2 children)
Muh blockchain!
I gotsta hab muh blockchain!
I needs muh non-fiat currancy!
I make muh owns!
Get yo' filthy gub'mint hands offen muh crypto munny!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday November 20 2018, @04:34PM
Proposed modification for Blockchain.
Instead of "proof of work done", how about "proof of work NOT done" ?
(It would also work for high school english homework.)
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @05:11PM
yeah, while you groveling whores use bankster slave notes and fund the IRS and every other enemy of humanity every chance you get. at least crypto has the chance to enable freedom. your precious slave "money" was designed to steal your wealth and sovereignty.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @11:02AM
Isn't that rather simple to calculate? The *cost* of production of both tend to be mostly in energy input costs. So you can equate these to CO2 emissions rather quickly.
https://barrick.q4cdn.com/788666289/files/presentation/2018/Barrick-Webcast-2018-Q3.pdf [q4cdn.com]
So, let's take about cash costs per once, is about $500, and oil is about $56. And if you look back, gold cost is almost about 10x oil before mines start to shut down - I WONDER WHY??!? So, each once of gold costs about 10 barrels of oil.
https://pyrolysium.org/how-much-co2-produced-by-burning-one-barrel-of-oil/ [pyrolysium.org]
So, about 4 tons of CO2 per ounce of gold.
For aluminum, you can do similar calculation. Cost of energy is main cost of Al production. Steel, copper, etc. also have similar cost profiles as majority is cost of energy to create these metals. So, do your own calculation as to how much it costs to create or refine or extract these metals. The difference is that once you have metal, you actually have something tangible. But once you have a Bitcoin, you actually don't have anything except a useless number.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday November 20 2018, @01:15PM (5 children)
Worth pointing out that gold might not have been as environmentally clean and pleasant to mine 4990 years ago when it started.
Its kinda like going software engineering about code maturity when comparing some COBOL from the 60s to todays javascript framework of the week.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @01:25PM
> ??? going software engineering
Best to stick with car analogies...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @02:56PM (2 children)
Thats what Ive been saying. Crappy javascript wastes far more energy than crypto, but there is no mention of that by these same people. I can undersrand legitimately being concerned by both or neither, but only one means you are ignorant or malicious.
I just optimized some code that went from about 10 hrs to do something down to 10 minutes in a day. If the pc was normally using about 0.3 kW, thats going from 3kWh to 0.05 kWh of energy consumption for the same task just by using more clever algorithms. Imagine if that could be done webwide just by the same people who complain about crap like this being less lazy or paying a bit more.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday November 20 2018, @06:54PM (1 child)
That's helpful, if the computer is setup to take advantage of said efficiency.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 20 2018, @11:15PM
I'm not sure what situations you are imaginign when it wouldnt be. Either it would be performing other useful tasks instead, performing less energy intensive tasks, or turned off.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday November 20 2018, @07:10PM
Difference being, that COBOL from the 60s may have had three or four self-taught programmers look at it from the time it was written until today, usually only when someone had a complaint about something. The latest javascript framework is published on multiple sites like GitHub, GitLab, etc. collaboratively developed by a large multi-national group of coders with diverse backgrounds from academically educated, through decades of experience in real world code development and maintenance, as well as plenty of the self-taught variety.
And, even with the huge difference in the human factors side of the equation, if that COBOL has processed a few billion transactions over the last 50 years without any significant user complaints, it's probably still "more mature" than the latest group-think project with 1000x the development hours invested in it to-date, mostly because it's addressing one specific problem, instead of trying to be all things to a wide audience.
🌻🌻 [google.com]