> On Dec 10, 2017, at 12:33 PM, Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 7:10 PM, g2s <g...@riseup.net> wrote: >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Kurt Buff <kurt.b...@gmail.com> >> Date: 12/9/17 2:50 PM (GMT-08:00) >> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org >> Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet >> >>> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 2:24 PM, z9wahqvh <z9wah...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 9:22 PM, Michael Nelson <nelson_mi...@yahoo.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> The mapping between Bitcoin and energy is missing the point, from the >>>> point of view of understanding the system. The correct mapping is between >>>> Bitcoin and the *price* of energy. >>>> >>>> If electricity were 10 times as expensive, Bitcoin mining use of electric >>>> power would drop by a factor of 10 (for a given BTC price). The point of >>>> spending money on mining is to be competitive. The absolute amount of >>>> power >>>> is irrelevant. >>>> >>>> This means that if governments raised the price of electricity, or >>>> resources used for generating it, then BTC would never be a problem. Not >>>> trivial to do, admittedly, but the point here is to understand the >>>> system. >>> >>> >>> it has nothing to do with the price of energy. the price of energy is >>> never >>> mentioned in the analyses that worry about Bitcoin's energy use, and for >>> good reason. >>> >>> the problem with Bitcoin is that it uses an enormous QUANTITY of energy to >>> verify each new transaction. That amount has nothing to do with the price >>> of >>> energy. It is a quantity of energy, measured in kilowatt hours or whatever >>> quantity you want (they currently use "TeraWatt hours," because it uses >>> that >>> much). It takes a certain amount of coal or oil or solar power to generate >>> those kilowatt hours, and the number is rising steeply: >>> >>> https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption >>> >>> There is no mention of price in the equations that produce this analysis, >>> nor should there be. >>> >>> IF coal and oil did not pollute and we had infinite free energy, this >>> would >>> not be a problem. But they do, and we don't, and it is, and it's getting >>> worse. >> >> You gloss over the fact that if coal and oil didn't pollute, and we >> had infinite free energy, bitcoin would be (relatively) >> [use|worth]less, and we'd not have to worry about most any shortage at >> all. >> >> Michael drew the correct conclusion. >> >> Bitcoin is produced in relation to other economic goods, and under the >> constraints of the costs of energy and computer infrastructure. If >> those costs go up, production of bitcoin goes does, and if other >> economic goods become more valuable relative to bitcoin, then again >> production of bitcoin goes down. >> >> Kurt >> >> A total evasion of the point. Point being Dead planet" sooner than later. >> >> Rr > > You don't define what you mean by "kill the planet", nor "dead > planet", but not even if every country launched all of their nuclear > weapons at once could we kill the planet. It's not even certain such > an event would kill all humans. > > At this stage in our technology, we simply can't do it. > > Kurt
Wrong. The nuclear winter from ~15000 nukes detonated around the globe would kill all humanity.