2021 Global Crypto Mining exceeds U.S. EV energy needs

[Dirt Worker]

90 to 110 Terawatt hours were required in mining crypto currency last year. The total U.S. EV consumption was estimated at 80 TWh. Just an observation. Foolish that so much is wasted on a fragile and intangible currency. Maybe I've read to many fiction novels. I understand that fortunes have been made from Crypto but historically the names Ponzi, Madoff, Stanford remind me that the masses can be fooled. The ones at the top of the pyramid usually do well when they get out early. More to the point, energy is a precious recourse and should not be wasted. Crypto is a quiet parasite while ICE vehicles seem to be the low hanging fruit. It will take decades to change our transportation structure but only seconds to flip a switch.

 

[JBee]

Technically lots of crypto mining is a energy to currency converter. A while back I considered that opportunity being already completely renewable off-grid with excess power, but just didn't like the volatility or the lack of independent control of the coins at the time, that were also profitable.

But like all fiat currency, the currency itself is only a token of information for resources allocation. In the real world, currency should really be representative of resources not fiat, let alone controlled by monopoly. But even then currency still only promotes the fallacy of private resource ownership, which in of itself is source of great calamity in the world.

I believe that as automation, mass production and reduced labour requirements displace resource scarcity and makes resources available at a trivial fractional "cost", we will enter a period where the constraints of conventional limited resource allocation will only be limited by the ideas of man kind, and that if mankind had the right ideas we could move to an era of abundance sooner rather than later.

To achieve this we need to abolish systems that promote scarcity and forced unnatural redistribution, like capitalism, central government etc too, and entertain more ideas that sustainably leverage the environment to funnel resources in excess of our needs or potentially even wants...if we have the right idea of what our wants should constitute.

 

[Dids]

Technically lots of crypto mining is a energy to currency converter. A while back I considered that opportunity being already completely renewable off-grid with excess power, but just didn't like the volatility or the lack of independent control of the coins at the time, that were also profitable.

But like all fiat currency, the currency itself is only a token of information for resources allocation. In the real world, currency should really be representative of resources not fiat, let alone controlled by monopoly. But even then currency still only promotes the fallacy of private resource ownership, which in of itself is source of great calamity in the world.

I believe that as automation, mass production and reduced labour requirements displace resource scarcity and makes resources available at a trivial fractional "cost", we will enter a period where the constraints of conventional limited resource allocation will only be limited by the ideas of man kind, and that if mankind had the right ideas we could move to an era of abundance sooner rather than later.

To achieve this we need to abolish systems that promote scarcity and forced unnatural redistribution, like capitalism, central government etc too, and entertain more ideas that sustainably leverage the environment to funnel resources in excess of our needs or potentially even wants...if we have the right idea of what our wants should constitute.

Small disagreement...
1. energy is actually plentiful. So abundant that most of it is wasted or not used in production. Crypto is an example of the plentiful availability of energy. It wastes huge amounts of energy to provide a non central controlled ledger. This is only possible because energy is very plentiful and very cheap.
2. Capitalism does not promote scarcity, nor does central government. In fact capitalism and a central ledger have produced a period of plenty. Does capitalism promote inequality, yes certainly. Does central government reduce the efficiency of distribution, yes also true. But these ideas are opposite sides of modern life and are the only way we will move into a post labor utopia. With out capitalism no one will create robots to produce the human labor free goods. In other words the primitive robot must allow the owner to accumulate the wealth of its production in order to finance the version 2.0 of the robot. No one can order someone to invent robot 2.0, that person has to want to do it.
So if you think that in the future some system will exist that will cause a human to produce robot 2.0 and cause that robot 2.0 to produce goods to give to others, then the future is now. I am asking you to do that. Please create a robot to produce a cybertruck for me, then give it to me. I am waiting.

 

[Crissa]

People wanted to invent things, which is why the best rocket motors came from the Soviet Union.

The thing is, no one wants to make widgets, but everyone wants widgets to be made. That's what Capitalism is good at.

It's easy to get caught up in the 'best system' but they all have their plusses and minuses and should be used when they give the appropriate output.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Small disagreement...
1. energy is actually plentiful. So abundant that most of it is wasted or not used in production. Crypto is an example of the plentiful availability of energy. It wastes huge amounts of energy to provide a non central controlled ledger. This is only possible because energy is very plentiful and very cheap.
2. Capitalism does not promote scarcity, nor does central government. In fact capitalism and a central ledger have produced a period of plenty. Does capitalism promote inequality, yes certainly. Does central government reduce the efficiency of distribution, yes also true. But these ideas are opposite sides of modern life and are the only way we will move into a post labor utopia. With out capitalism no one will create robots to produce the human labor free goods. In other words the primitive robot must allow the owner to accumulate the wealth of its production in order to finance the version 2.0 of the robot. No one can order someone to invent robot 2.0, that person has to want to do it.
So if you think that in the future some system will exist that will cause a human to produce robot 2.0 and cause that robot 2.0 to produce goods to give to others, then the future is now. I am asking you to do that. Please create a robot to produce a cybertruck for me, then give it to me. I am waiting.

on 1). I don't disagree with the premise that energy is abundant. The problem with "free energy" is the constraint of the definition of "free". For example: If I don't pay for energy is it free? Or what if I have access to energy without any effort on my part, is it then free energy or even perpetual motion? For all intents and purposes solar, and also nuclear is perpetual motion, if you consider the short timeframe of our lives in comparison to the "eternity" of cosmic activity.

1st law broadly is that all energy already exists, meaning we aren't doing anything else than converting the energy type we use. How we convert that depends on if we can concentrate enough energy into a tool to do meaningful work regardless of conversion losses. (Batteries in a EV, fuel in a ICE etc)

You can distill the function of technology as a system as follows;
Technology is a tool to leverage the environment to do our will.

Unlike other mammals we have the extensive capability, together with the use of tools, to be able to learn and predict the outcome and capability of a tool. This "intelligence" allows us to create unnatural artificial things in our mind without resource use, and leverage previous technology "art" to do so. I can conjure up Enterprise in my mind without any effort, even devise interstellar travel without batting an eyelid. The questions then become, do I want a Enterprise, do I need one, will it work, what will it cost, who do I need to build it, is it even a good idea or worthwhile, or morally correct to make such a thing, who will use it, or even worse misuse it. Starship, CT and AI all fall under the same thought regimen.

In fact "by design" it seems we do not have the ability to survive without tools (read technology) to make our environment more hospitable so that we can survive in it. Unlike animals that have adapted to their environment, by having fur or fangs or can eat grass instead of hunt, our survival is predicated on the fact we must "adapt" resources in the environment to protect us from being killed by the environment. This is where we are on the food pyramid. This is the "nature of life".

The question then becomes what is the most effective technology to leverage our environment into human sustainable submission. Sustainability is the capacity to endure.

To do so we must focus on being good stewards of the resource we were born from and into ("star" dust to dust), that we only borrow for a time before it becomes the resources of the future generations of life. If we steward it sustainably we humans will also be there to see it thrive.

2) Lets first frame the argument with some definitions:

On Capitalism google says:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market;

1. The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
2. The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.
3. An economic system based on predominantly private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth; contrasted with socialism or especially communism, in which the state has the predominant role in the economy.
4. a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
5. a socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately-owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
6. a specific variation or implementation of either such socio-economic system.
7. an economic system based on private ownership of capital

I think there are various schools of thought regarding what the best systems are to use to achieve sustainability, both economically and technically. However, it is intrinsic to the nature of capitalism that it survives by the idea that "supply must meet demand". This leads to scarcity because the "supplier" does not desire to create excess in any form, because that is detrimental to another fictional value system called currency, in that an oversupply causes a reduction of it's "fiat" value, and therefore the makes the accumulation of artificial currency undesirable. Note that currency is not value, only a debt on society, should they believe in that currency enough to convert it into something else. (USD="in God we trust"). I don't believe that it is of any value to use any currency to promote economic activity (incl. crypto), let alone to lobby and fund detrimental ideas that have not been proven to be of any value to humanity, except for the artificial accumulation of resource allocation to keep it from the masses. It's a funnel to the top.

Even though technically the value of a carrot is still the value of a carrot, no matter how many carrots there are, or how many want to eat them or not. Our value system is corrupted by faulty upbringing and the persistence of the ideology of many dead greedy men. This is inherently unnatural and not the way that nature works, hence it is unsustainable.

The primary reason for this is it's background in the idea of "cradle to grave" to promote sales through planned obsolescence, as all "products and services" become expendable, as does society and humanity, and everything is of limited temporal use, which leads to the creation of "waste", or "uselessness". Even there we are transfixed by pondering what might lay beyond and act in fear of it, creating an unnatural balance in our own security and how we assign value to ourselves, others and the environment.

This transition from something being "useful" to becoming "useless" is completely contrived by the programming of the human mind and general social acceptance of fallacies like ownership and the trade thereof. Without ownership there is no trade. Without ownership there is no accumulation of things, or currency, that we can horde and steal from others.

We were born with nothing, we ate food and grew, just to become food for the worms. We are temporal, but real world nature is not, at least not on the same scale as us. It would be good to gain some perspective as to the true nature of life, and the meaning thereof.

These economic systems are a direct polar opposite of nature that knows not of "waste" or "uselessness" as everything in nature is a resource for "something", as nothing does not exist. Most of which the human mind fails to understand whilst driveling over the latest options on a Tesla Cybertruck Quad Plaid....

As for building such a device or requiring a financial incentive to do so, otherwise it won't be done, I beg to differ and argue the opposite. In fact EM is a prime example of ideas that are not formed by the limitations of financial systems or for the benefit of them, but rather in the idea that humanity should thrive in this environment of our known universe, and also understands that it requires the right technology to leverage the environment to do so, in the full awareness of the constraints of the fictional economic systems we operate in.

 

[Dids]

on 1). I don't disagree with the premise that energy is abundant. The problem with "free energy" is the constraint of the definition of "free". For example: If I don't pay for energy is it free? Or what if I have access to energy without any effort on my part, is it then free energy or even perpetual motion? For all intents and purposes solar, and also nuclear is perpetual motion, if you consider the short timeframe of our lives in comparison to the "eternity" of cosmic activity.

1st law broadly is that all energy already exists, meaning we aren't doing anything else than converting the energy type we use. How we convert that depends on if we can concentrate enough energy into a tool to do meaningful work regardless of conversion losses. (Batteries in a EV, fuel in a ICE etc)

You can distill the function of technology as a system as follows;
Technology is a tool to leverage the environment to do our will.

Unlike other mammals we have the extensive capability, together with the use of tools, to be able to learn and predict the outcome and capability of a tool. This "intelligence" allows us to create unnatural artificial things in our mind without resource use, and leverage previous technology "art" to do so. I can conjure up Enterprise in my mind without any effort, even devise interstellar travel without batting an eyelid. The questions then become, do I want a Enterprise, do I need one, will it work, what will it cost, who do I need to build it, is it even a good idea or worthwhile, or morally correct to make such a thing, who will use it, or even worse misuse it. Starship, CT and AI all fall under the same thought regimen.

In fact "by design" it seems we do not have the ability to survive without tools (read technology) to make our environment more hospitable so that we can survive in it. Unlike animals that have adapted to their environment, by having fur or fangs or can eat grass instead of hunt, our survival is predicated on the fact we must "adapt" resources in the environment to protect us from being killed by the environment. This is where we are on the food pyramid. This is the "nature of life".

The question then becomes what is the most effective technology to leverage our environment into human sustainable submission. Sustainability is the capacity to endure.

To do so we must focus on being good stewards of the resource we were born from and into ("star" dust to dust), that we only borrow for a time before it becomes the resources of the future generations of life. If we steward it sustainably we humans will also be there to see it thrive.

2) Lets first frame the argument with some definitions:

On Capitalism google says:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market;

1. The state of having capital or property; possession of capital.
2. The concentration or massing of capital in the hands of a few; also, the power or influence of large or combined capital.
3. An economic system based on predominantly private (individual or corporate) investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and wealth; contrasted with socialism or especially communism, in which the state has the predominant role in the economy.
4. a socio-economic system based on private property rights, including the private ownership of resources or capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
5. a socio-economic system based on the abstraction of resources into the form of privately-owned capital, with economic decisions made largely through the operation of a market unregulated by the state.
6. a specific variation or implementation of either such socio-economic system.
7. an economic system based on private ownership of capital

I think there are various schools of thought regarding what the best systems are to use to achieve sustainability, both economically and technically. However, it is intrinsic to the nature of capitalism that it survives by the idea that "supply must meet demand". This leads to scarcity because the "supplier" does not desire to create excess in any form, because that is detrimental to another fictional value system called currency, in that an oversupply causes a reduction of it's "fiat" value, and therefore the makes the accumulation of artificial currency undesirable. Note that currency is not value, only a debt on society, should they believe in that currency enough to convert it into something else. (USD="in God we trust"). I don't believe that it is of any value to use any currency to promote economic activity (incl. crypto), let alone to lobby and fund detrimental ideas that have not been proven to be of any value to humanity, except for the artificial accumulation of resource allocation to keep it from the masses. It's a funnel to the top.

Even though technically the value of a carrot is still the value of a carrot, no matter how many carrots there are, or how many want to eat them or not. Our value system is corrupted by faulty upbringing and the persistence of the ideology of many dead greedy men. This is inherently unnatural and not the way that nature works, hence it is unsustainable.

The primary reason for this is it's background in the idea of "cradle to grave" to promote sales through planned obsolescence, as all "products and services" become expendable, as does society and humanity, and everything is of limited temporal use, which leads to the creation of "waste", or "uselessness". Even there we are transfixed by pondering what might lay beyond and act in fear of it, creating an unnatural balance in our own security and how we assign value to ourselves, others and the environment.

This transition from something being "useful" to becoming "useless" is completely contrived by the programming of the human mind and general social acceptance of fallacies like ownership and the trade thereof. Without ownership there is no trade. Without ownership there is no accumulation of things, or currency, that we can horde and steal from others.

We were born with nothing, we ate food and grew, just to become food for the worms. We are temporal, but real world nature is not, at least not on the same scale as us. It would be good to gain some perspective as to the true nature of life, and the meaning thereof.

These economic systems are a direct polar opposite of nature that knows not of "waste" or "uselessness" as everything in nature is a resource for "something", as nothing does not exist. Most of which the human mind fails to understand whilst driveling over the latest options on a Tesla Cybertruck Quad Plaid....

As for building such a device or requiring a financial incentive to do so, otherwise it won't be done, I beg to differ and argue the opposite. In fact EM is a prime example of ideas that are not formed by the limitations of financial systems or for the benefit of them, but rather in the idea that humanity should thrive in this environment of our known universe, and also understands that it requires the right technology to leverage the environment to do so, in the full awareness of the constraints of the fictional economic systems we operate in.

It is true EM is a prime example of altruistic intent but he did not create or invent any / all of the altruistic art. His companies did that and they are peopled by person not motivated to be there for altruistic reasons. And EM and his companies are also a prime example of centralized government and the efficiency of a benevolent dictator. But since power always corrupts....
@Crissa makes a good point that the soviets invented great rocket engines without being motivated by profit, but is that true? Profit is really just the ability to live a better life and while the Soviet model did not include accumulation to the individual it did include accumulation to the nation.

 

[Crissa]

The rocket motors was more an economy of reputation: They wanted to make things - and they would be allowed to make bigger things if they succeeded making earlier things. And that, as Dids pointed out, how the current crop of 'capitalist' space companies work: they aren't operating in the black from their widget sales at all yet.

And that should be okay.

-Crissa

 

[Berno]

Wow, you guys are going off. I feel like I just listened to Thoreau and Peter Joseph having pillow talk. Hey…how bout that crazy windshield wiper!?!?