Bitcoin....who's gotten into it?

[Stew Pid]

I thought Bitcoin was a pump and dump.

But it’s actually a pump and pump and pump and pump (“hodl”)

[byates1]

It's going up forever Laura

[stalefish3169]

Hmmm. Bitcoin fixes this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clima...curve-rooftop/

Rooftop solar panels are flooding California’s grid. That’s a problem.

As electricity prices go negative, the Golden State is struggling to offload a glut of solar power

In sunny California, solar panels are everywhere. They sit in dry, desert landscapes in the Central Valley and are scattered over rooftops in Los Angeles’s urban center. By last count, the state had nearly 47 gigawatts of solar power installed — enough to power 13.9 million homes and provide over a quarter of the Golden State’s electricity.

But now, the state and its grid operator are grappling with a strange reality: There is so much solar on the grid that, on sunny spring days when there’s not as much demand, electricity prices go negative. Gigawatts of solar are “curtailed” — essentially, thrown away.

In response, California has cut back incentives for rooftop solar and slowed the pace of installing panels. But the diminishing economic returns may slow the development of solar in a state that has tried to move to renewable energy. And as other states build more and more solar plants of their own, they may soon face the same problems.

“These are not insurmountable challenges,” said Michelle Davis, head of global solar at the energy research and consulting firm Wood Mackenzie Power and Renewables. “But they are challenges that a lot of grid operators have never had to deal with.”

Solar power has many wonderful properties — once built, it costs almost nothing to run; it produces no air pollution and generates energy without burning fossil fuels. But it also has one major, obvious drawback: The sun doesn’t shine all the time.

Over 15 years ago, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory were in the midst of modeling a future with widespread solar power when they noticed something strange. With lots of solar power on a given electricity grid, the net load — or the demand for electricity minus the renewable energy — would take on a “U” shape. Sky-high demand in the morning would be replaced by almost zero demand in the middle of the day, when solar power could generate virtually all electricity people needed. Then as the sun set, demand surged up again...

[shera]

I've looked at the situation a little bit, storage is an obvious but expensive solution. I was looking at how to use a tesla cybertruck as the storage - it is equipped with a 240v outlet in the bed to run a welding machine or whatever. Another thing that's not being done enough is west facing panels. Charging different rates for different times of day is also a good idea, I tried to get it done here and they told me I didn't have the right meter. My house is brand new, hahaha. I guess it's just not something they want to implement in my remote locale and they have it in Denver where EVERYONE is coming home from work and running air conditioning units at the same time.

[skaredshtles]

I've looked at the situation a little bit, storage is an obvious but expensive solution. I was looking at how to use a tesla cybertruck as the storage

Related: https://www.capitalone.com/cars/lear...lightning/1664

[MultiVerse]

Hmmm. Bitcoin fixes this.

Nonsense. Firstly, because the WP article shows bitcoin is unnecessary when it comes to advancing green energy. Bitcoin mining is not advancing the green energy transformation in any meaningful way. That's because Bitcoin mining both in absolute terms and in relative terms uses much more fossil fuel than in the past. Miners need to run 24/7, not just when the sun is shinning or when the wind is blowing.

The folks arguing bitcoin advances green energy have things backwards. Backwards in the sense that as more low cost renewable energy comes online it pushes higher cost coal, gas, and nuclear plants out of service. That's where bitcoin mining comes in.

Bitcoin mining doesn't accelerate the green energy transition. Instead the availability of renewable energy makes it cost effective for miners to utilize fossil fuel like old power plants, often coal, often with no other interested buyers, and repurpose them without concern for the environmental impacts and remediation obligations.

So while it's theoretically possible for miners to utilize zero-emission sources of electricity when there's excess supply, in reality it's a tiny fraction of overall mining. Miners prefer fossil-fired energy because:

1. Fossil fuel derived energy is more readily available at a lower cost thanks to renewables
2. Fossil fuel energy better matches the 24/7 load characteristics of cryptocurrency mining
3. Statutory and regulatory requirements increase the value of renewable energy for other things making fossil fuel energy more cost competitive when price is the only consideration

[MultiVerse]

I thought Bitcoin was a pump and dump.

But it’s actually a pump and pump and pump and pump (“hodl”)

I'm not aware of a phrase to describe it. Regardless, the Ponzi crowd have it wrong. It's not a scheme that crashes down upon exposure. It's more like a balloon that keeps deflating and inflating over-and-over. It's all about the flow of money.

[shera]

Related: https://www.capitalone.com/cars/lear...lightning/1664

Yes exactly! They talk about needing to purchase an inverter for $4k, but every solar system has an inverter. Really the article doesn't discuss integrating with a home solar system at all, but def on the right track.

[stalefish3169]

Nonsense. Firstly, because the WP article shows bitcoin is unnecessary when it comes to advancing green energy. Bitcoin mining is not advancing the green energy transformation in any meaningful way. That's because Bitcoin mining both in absolute terms and in relative terms uses much more fossil fuel than in the past. Miners need to run 24/7, not just when the sun is shinning or when the wind is blowing.

The folks arguing bitcoin advances green energy have things backwards. Backwards in the sense that as more low cost renewable energy comes online it pushes higher cost coal, gas, and nuclear plants out of service. That's where bitcoin mining comes in.

Bitcoin mining doesn't accelerate the green energy transition. Instead the availability of renewable energy makes it cost effective for miners to utilize fossil fuel like old power plants, often coal, often with no other interested buyers, and repurpose them without concern for the environmental impacts and remediation obligations.

So while it's theoretically possible for miners to utilize zero-emission sources of electricity when there's excess supply, in reality it's a tiny fraction of overall mining. Miners prefer fossil-fired energy because:

1. Fossil fuel derived energy is more readily available at a lower cost thanks to renewables
2. Fossil fuel energy better matches the 24/7 load characteristics of cryptocurrency mining
3. Statutory and regulatory requirements increase the value of renewable energy for other things making fossil fuel energy more cost competitive when price is the only consideration

MV is in denial and calls me a liar. Then he lies.

https://batcoinz.com/comparing-bitco...es-energy-mix/

"Based on the data, Bitcoin mining is currently the highest user of sustainable energy (52.6%) across sub-sectors, and has also achieved the highest increase in sustainable energy mix (+38%) during the period charted from Jul 2019 – Jun 2023 compared to other global industries."

[MultiVerse]

lol, based on the bitcoin mining industry's self reported data. That data has been repeatedly debunked throughout this thread. Weird tho how the industry has a deep affection for self-report data, but refuses to comply with U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA requests for energy usage data. It's as if lying about it to the public on a webpage carries little penalty while lying to the U.S. government has consequences... not to mention bitcoin mining takes place all over the world in fossil fuel rich places like Russia and Kazakhstan for which data is all but nonexistent.

[shera]

That EIA request was inappropriate. I see how you twist things.

stalefish, you will not convince him, you will never convince him, waste of breath

[MultiVerse]

Regardless, the industry has a history of falsifying energy usage numbers. Bitcoin is wasteful by design. That's why the industry will fight any and all environmental disclosure requirements. As for convincing, I'm simply discussing reality while you and Stalefish exist in a fantasy world where bitcoin is good for pollution reduction. Even if the industry's self-reported claims were correct (lol) bitcoin energy consumption has doubled since 2022 with a proportionate increase in fossil fuel use. Cambridge currently estimates annualized global bitcoin energy use at around 175 terrwatt-hours (TWh)

[shera]

hubris

[bennymac]

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

You guys should do some self reflection on your biases. That exercise is usually step 1 in anyone who has a graduate degree.

[MultiVerse]

Scientific literature review of academic and non-academic industry data showing self-reported bitcoin/blockchain energy usage is rife with errors, outright bias, and unsubstantiated claims or assumptions:

"Overall, based on our analysis using the quality indicators proposed in Section 3, we report that most of the models used for energy and environmental footprint estimation suffer many known flaws that limit their reliability. We argue that more empirical data has to be collected before these estimates can be considered accurate and scientifically rigorous for policy decisions. Many of the reviewed studies suffer from trivial issues such as unsubstantiated claims or assumptions. This is uncharacteristic of a mature scientific domain, however as this field is in the early stage, these measures are likely to see further refinement both in terms of their reliability and accuracy. We identify three potential avenues for improvement in the state of this field: standardization, quality assessment, and provision for more data collection."

Promoting rigor in blockchain energy and environmental footprint research: A systematic literature review

[stalefish3169]

lol, based on the bitcoin mining industry's self reported data. That data has been repeatedly debunked throughout this thread. Weird tho how the industry has a deep affection for self-report data, but refuses to comply with U.S. Energy Information Administration EIA requests for energy usage data. It's as if lying about it to the public on a webpage carries little penalty while lying to the U.S. government has consequences... not to mention bitcoin mining takes place all over the world in fossil fuel rich places like Russia and Kazakhstan for which data is all but nonexistent.

Those "requests" were illegal, Mr. "$tAlEfiSh iS LyINg." Look at you, out here being begging for more authoritarianism days after the uniparty voted for FISA warrantless spying on Americans in a gigantic infringement of our 4th Amendment rights. Truly shameful behavior.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.the...lectricity-use

[J. Barron DeJong]

Am I understanding correctly that fees from this bullshit is what’s supposed to save the miners?:

https://www.okx.com/web3/marketplace...btc/rune-stone

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/market...tcoin-puppets?

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/marketplace/nodemonkes?

[MultiVerse]

Those "requests" were illegal, Mr. "$tAlEfiSh iS LyINg."

Right, I'm not disputing the illegality of the requests. That's not the point. The point is the industry's self-reported numbers have been consistently debunked and that's why they oppose a more rigorous approach to environmental disclosure requirements. They have a history of lying. The question over whether it's appropriate for governments to request the data is a separate discussion. The industry wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to self-report without real scrutiny.

[shera]

the fee party is over for now anyway, but it does raise some interesting questions about the future

[stalefish3169]

That EIA request was inappropriate. I see how you twist things.

stalefish, you will not convince him, you will never convince him, waste of breath

I'm not doing it to convince him. I'm adding to the record so people can decide on their own.

[stalefish3169]

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.

You guys should do some self reflection on your biases. That exercise is usually step 1 in anyone who has a graduate degree.

When I was in graduate school, Step 1 was learning to make sure to cite our sources. So you should've given Upton Sinclair credit after you decided to use his quote.

[stalefish3169]

Am I understanding correctly that fees from this bullshit is what’s supposed to save the miners?:

https://www.okx.com/web3/marketplace...btc/rune-stone

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/market...tcoin-puppets?

https://magiceden.io/ordinals/marketplace/nodemonkes?

You're dumb as a rock if you think the end use case is only going to be digital rocks. We are so early.

[bennymac]

When I was in graduate school, Step 1 was learning to make sure to cite our sources. So you should've given Upton Sinclair credit after you decided to use his quote.

But low sell high. Past performance is not an indicator of future results. The above quote from Sinclair.

These are all well known maxims. And this isn’t an academic paper - it’s the BTC thread.

Nice try though LOL. Attempting to nitpick my comment in a super pathetic manner is telling.

[Mustonen]

I'm not aware of a phrase to describe it. Regardless, the Ponzi crowd have it wrong. It's not a scheme that crashes down upon exposure. It's more like a balloon that keeps deflating and inflating over-and-over. It's all about the flow of money.

A ponzi isn’t about the flow of money?

It depends a bit on your definition of a Ponzi scheme, and I recognize that it isn’t a deliberate and centrally coordinated fraud…. But in the sense that all returns are more than 100% dependent on new money coming into the system, how is it not a Ponzi?

[byates1]

I'm going to congratulate all of us for maintaining a 647 page half decade long argument. Nice job everyone.