If You Are Going To Worry About Bitcoin's Energy Consumption, Worry About Server Farms Too -- For More Than One Reason
from the terawatts-up? dept
Bitcoin has been much in the public eye recently. Most of the attention has been focused on the extraordinary rise in its price as measured against traditional currencies. But another aspect that has been exercising people is its energy usage, as a post on the Digiconimist site explains:
The continuous block mining cycle incentivizes people all over the world to mine Bitcoin. As mining can provide a solid stream of revenue, people are very willing to run power-hungry machines to get a piece of it. Over the years this has caused the total energy consumption of the Bitcoin network to grow to epic proportions, as the price of the currency reached new highs. The entire Bitcoin network now consumes more energy than a number of countries, based on a report published by the International Energy Agency.
Currently, the country closest to Bitcoin in terms of electricity consumption, expected to be around 32 terawatt-hours this year, is Denmark. Some are predicting that by 2020, the Bitcoin system will use as much electricity as the entire world does today. Others aren't so sure. Here's Ars Technica:
When Bitcoin launched in 2009, each block came with a 50-bitcoin reward for the miner who created it. This figure is scheduled to fall by half every four years. It fell to 25 bitcoins in 2012 and 12.5 bitcoins in 2016. The reward will fall again to 6.25 bitcoins in 2020. When the mining industry's revenue falls by half, its energy consumption should fall by the same proportion, since, if it didn't fall, mining would become an unprofitable activity.
In any case, a new article in the Guardian reminds us that Bitcoin is just one part of a much larger energy consumption problem that the digital world needs to address:
The communications industry could use 20% of all the world's electricity by 2025, hampering attempts to meet climate change targets and straining grids as demand by power-hungry server farms storing digital data from billions of smartphones, tablets and internet-connected devices grows exponentially.
It doesn't really matter which of Bitcoin and the server farms will consume the most power in years to come -- clearly both will be large, and both will require efforts to increase the availability of low-cost renewable energy so as to minimize their environmental damage. But there's a fundamental way in which the two sectors differ.
Bitcoin is burning up the tera-watts to carry out meaningless calculations in order to win the prize of the next cryptocurrency block. Server farms need power in order to store detailed records of everything we do online, or with our connected devices, alongside masses of Internet of Things data streams. Whatever it is doing, Bitcoin is certainly not threatening our privacy, and arguably is enhancing it. But loss of privacy is exactly the risk arising from the use of massive server farms around the world.
The main reason why they are being built is to hold unprecedented quantities of personal data that can be analyzed and the results sold in some way -- whether for advertising, or for other purposes. We constantly see stories about sensitive information being leaked on a massive scale, or legally acquired and then used in troubling ways. Alongside worthy concerns about the way that Bitcoin mining can degrade our physical world, we should worry more about how data mining can degrade our more personal space.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bitcoin, energy consumption, servers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
worse than art speculators
Whatever it is, I just hope there aren't too many people who end up losing their house when the Bitcoin bubble finally bursts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
At Some Point You Have To Confront The Question ...
... of whether or not to go nuclear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'll point out some similar wastes, shall I?
Ultimately meaningless World of Warcraft...
Ultimately meaningless instant responses to trivial comments...
Ultimately meaningless recordings of phone call metadata....
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: worse than art speculators
Human feelings and desire. It's just how it goes, the same reason people can panic and cause a stock market crash out of fear. If you "feel" like something is worth a million dollars you won't let it go for for less and if you want something and are willing to pay someone at more more than they think it is worse you got a deal!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But... but... that means...
Net Neutrality would have led to a vast number of content providers needing server farms, rather than a select few. Ajit Pai is a superhero for defeating this evil.
Good to know.
/s?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
this game is fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Imagine a different kind of Internet
This removes rather a lot of the need for data centers, because computing resources can be distributed and can use on-site power generation: solar, wind, and even low-tech ones like bicycle-powered generators. The price of computing hardware keeps falling as the performance keeps going up, and projects like the Raspberry Pi provide an assortment of physically small and power efficient computers that can handle a surprising amount of work. An awful lot of folks could build their own home data center from pluggable components rather cheaply.
This is the kind of distributed, empowering, environmentally-friendly Internet that some of us envisioned a long time ago. It's not without its technical problems, but there are solutions already available for most of those. What it's missing is the one thing I asked you to imagine: cheap, ubiquitous connectivity. And the barrier to that sits in the offices of the massive ISPs and their political servants -- because while this is an Internet model that's still profitable for them, it's not obscenely profitable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As for the server farms I don't quite know what to think about it. I don't think we can fully decentralize everything (except maybe you can have several server farms all around decentralizing stuff among them) so we will have to live with them. I mean we have the Internet Archive for instance. Do we really think it can be run without any massive server farm? What I believe we can do is make data collection rational and storage/processing more efficient. Of course I don't see it happening any time soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: burning up the tera-watts to carry out meaningless calculations
Those calculations have a quite definitive meaning. They mean that there is an alternative scarcity model. This compares to paper fiat currencies whose scarcity model is constrained primarily by the self discipline of corrupt governments who declare things to be so, and expect fear of their military might to make those lies true.
These watts reflect a practical implementation of a complete shift in the theory of economics. Satoshi Nakamoto has changed econ in a way that dwarves anything Madison of Nash ever did.
That is what those watts mean.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: worse than art speculators
In proportion to what?
Same thing that makes the US dollar worth more than the Australian or Zimbabwe dollar. Basically, people think they'll be able to get more from a US dollar in the future—or more from Bitcoin than Litecoin. None are backed by gold or anything else, so there's no objective measure. (US dollars can be used to pay US taxes, but that's not the main reason people use them—lots of non-US people use US dollars too.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It all depends on where you're mining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also compare with "legacy" systems
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Imagine a different kind of Internet
Many data centers already run on renewable power. Distributed computing would reduce power wasted in grid transmission losses, but wouldn't significantly affect the power needed to run computation. Of course, if we were being asked to track ourselves, with our own electricity, and send the data to advertisers, we might be less willing to do some of these computations.
I tried that at a science center, and it's a lot of work for not much electricity. The only practical uses I see are running bicycle accessories, supplying emergency power when the grid is down, and powering stuff in off-grid areas when no solar/battery power is available. Not very useful in developed countries except when camping.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It all depends on where you're mining.
Some areas like Québec use a lot of electric heating. It would be great to replace every electric baseboard heater in those areas with one that does useful work (Bitcoin or other calculations). It doesn't help in the summer, so we should still try to reduce the energy usage. There are various ideas like proof-of-stake but no fully-developed workable systems yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Bitcoin rewards will drop (in about 2 years) by half, and then half again a year or two later. As the reward level drops, the income from mining drops, and thus fewer people mine. There is a point where it's not financial viable to mine.
So today's billions of giga hashes pretty much all disappear where people can no longer afford to do it.
Now interesting, if they power drops too much, the cost per transaction may go up. The "gas" as it were would become the prime source of income, and as such, would have to be adjusted to a level that keeps enough miners in the game to process transactions.
Mining has to continue for transactions to happen, even through they will no longer be mining for very much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The flaw in your logic above is that mining was "profitable" at around $300 per bitcoin as it was enough to cover the cost of electricity. When your looking at $10k per coin you're so far out of sync with the cost to produce a coin as to be somewhat crazy.
It's a feedback loop where the price floor is set by the lowest cost power supplies as long as the current value is higher than that, more miners will be added to the network.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Imagine a different kind of Internet
Yup. A bicycle-powered generator is only suitable in an emergency that no-one prepared for, even in a third-world country. From a conversation on the subject on one of the sci.space Usenet groups a long time ago:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It all depends on where you're mining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Imagine a different kind of Internet
We need this sort of distributed thinking both at the link layer & the application layer as server farms are serving most the demand in both places.
---
By the way, go DHTs! Go cryptography!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Ninja on Dec 14th, 2017 @ 4:41am
However most services serve the purpose of a) publishing information to be read by whoever wants it and/or b) sending messages to named recipients. In both cases modern peer-to-peer technology can more than handle it even without blockchains, and reduce the issues pointed out by this excellent article whilst improving several other aspects of the Internet including efficiency. It can even help (but not replace) The Internet Archive's difficult job by both taking load off them & making it easier.
---
True not everything can be made to work without server farms, and it is worth supporting the OpenCompute project to minimize those problems. But most things can and should work without those server farms.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: worse than art speculators
Network effects, technical features, and brand recognition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Internet services useful
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: Ninja on Dec 14th, 2017 @ 4:41am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is actually a big problem to think about. You are right that the share of remuneration is decreasing, and the share of energy consumption for cryptocurrency is increasing, and this seems to have side effects. Of course, people are now finding new technologies and improving alternative energy sources. Although judging from the article about new trading platforms - https://gocryptowise.com/blog/best-binance-alternatives/ then people don't really care about these issues right now
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cryptocurrencies are something that I have been trading for some months now. In this game, you have to estimate when a certain currency's price will rise. The entire procedure consists of analyzing and predicting the increase of a currency's value. In the last several weeks, I've found something really valuable - https://safetrading.today/traders/bitcoin-signals/ Bitcoin Growth Predictor allows you predict the growth of bitcoin and make a profit. I've been using it for a few days now and I'm quite happy with it. It's worth a try!
[ link to this | view in thread ]