Buying fossil free bitcoin

Erik Hedman

Member
Dec 27, 2015
27
32
Skövde, Sweden
sauerkraut.se
Hi all.

Do any of you know ways to get fossil free bitcoin?

Bitcoin mining consumes a lot of energy. Energy that, I guess, comes in a great part from fossil sources. Thats not good (at least I don't think so).

So I asked the exhange I usually use (btcx.se) if they could provide bitcoin from certified fossil free sources, if needed, for a small premium. They answered that they thought the idea interesting and would talk about it at a company meeting.

(I wrote about this om /r/btc/ but this place seems more calm so I guess that it is easier to get a good discussion here.)
 

Bloomie

Administrator
Staff member
Aug 19, 2015
510
803
I imagine it would be more than a small premium, and the "certification" part is ripe for fraud.
 

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
Best bet is buy off a Bitcoin miner directly, welcome to the forum by the way. :)

Personally I do not consider carbon a particularly troublesome polluted and also certainly not a significant green house gas. I think the temperate of the Earth is being driven more by the fluctuations in the sun compared to human carbon emissions. Might not be a popular opinion, even controversial, a consequence of a free mind I hope.
 

JVWVU

Active Member
Oct 10, 2015
142
177
Wow I did not even think this was a concern but again I come from coal and nat gas land.
 

Erik Hedman

Member
Dec 27, 2015
27
32
Skövde, Sweden
sauerkraut.se
@Bloomie It might be possible if my exchange buys from, say, a mining farm like KNC Miner in northen Sweden (to use fossil energy sorces in northen Sweden would be much more expensive than the cheap hydroelectric power. If they buy from a pool with individual miners, nah, don't think it is possible.

@VeritasSapere lets agree to disagree on the global warming causes. You could actually make it more general: how do I do to buy bitcoin from a block with some special property, like being a BIP109 (classic/XT) block. That would be easier, because you can always trace your coins to their originating block.
[doublepost=1455651628][/doublepost]@VeritasSapere Thanks for the welcoma. As i wrote, this place is much less crazy than e. g. /r/btc/
[doublepost=1455651731][/doublepost]@JVWVU Norway?
 

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
That is cool, we can agree to disagree. :)

I believe there are several companies out there that allow you to buy coins directly from the miners or through an intermediary company. The idea is that these coins are more fungible and therefore come at a premium, debatable I think but none the less these companies and services do exist.

If you know what miner they came from there is a good chance it will be from one of the mines which uses hydro electricity. I would estimate that around forty percent of the Bitcoin's that are mined now are fossil free. ;)
 

Erik Hedman

Member
Dec 27, 2015
27
32
Skövde, Sweden
sauerkraut.se
Yes, I read somewhere that newly minted coins were more valuable because that they were guaranteed to not havet been involved in any criminal activities.

I don't know were you got the number 40% fossil free, but I, too, guess that there is a quite sizeable portion that are fossil free. I just read that Bitfury are almost, or entirely, carbon neutral.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Erik Hedman
tl;dr it's irreverent.

Here's my reasoning, I've also been very concerned about the energy consumption involved in bitcoin. I've been mining, ironically, fossil flue free Bitcoin since 2011 as our electricity is produced from Hydro power.

I'd like to point out some problems I see with your request. Bitcoin is effectively virtual Money if we agree on that we can move on. Money in order to be money needs to be fungible while it has the same qualities as a virtual commodity it has no physical characteristics, all bitcoins are equal if bitcoin is to be money.

Were I live you’re looked at like the “enemy” if you forget to bring a reusable bag to the store. One is expected to be environmentally effective to avoid social judgments. I used to commute by bicycle (now bicycle and train) and I've noted the same judgment exists with some cyclists towards car drivers, I'm guilty of judging those who squander fossil flues as less environmental effective individuals even thinking of them as part of the problem.

It's important to note the distinctions between value judgments and facts. Effectively being environmental sustainable is just a state of being, wanting to be environmental sustainable is a value judgment, it's a value based on science and ethics but still a value you have to pay for with real value and not all of us agree too. It’s not an economically superior judgment, in fact it could be considered a class tax if you live in a world fuelled by artificial exponential growth.

Energy has never before in our history been this ubiquitous and convertible, we can transform fairly efficiently energy into work, food or commodities for further refinement. In a free market it’s those who convert energy into satisfying market need most efficiently that are encouraged to be in more efficiently.
Our fossil flue energy, environmental degrading paradox does bring the effectiveness of the market solution into question. While I am probably the minority in the vocal Bitcoin community when it comes to the impact of green house gas emissions on global warming, it seems the evidence is overwhelming that it's man made.

More over I don’t actually agree that there is a paradox at all it’s not that the free market will burn up all the fuel and destroy the planet “v” the free market is not the problem, and the evidence of global warming is questionable at best.

We could possibly put that paradox to the test if we all agreed to stop using an economic system that was dependent on exponential consumption, until then it’s the system of exponential artificially stimulated growth that’s the bigger problem.

The artificially stimulated growth, over the last 100 years has distorted the cost of energy. Arguably a deflationary spiral will result in a market based allocation of resources and energy and it's unknown if it would or wouldn’t be environmentally sustainable.

The energy cost of mining Bitcoin is also a value judgment, it’s designed to decrease to the marginal energy cost necessary to sustain the security in the network.

It’s a beautiful design as it has nothing to do with efficiency of mining. It has to do with the value judgments of individuals. Note the efficiency of mining has caused the network of miners to consolidate as they guard there efficiency gains and exploit them themselves as opposed to sell them in the market, but this will change over time.

It’s not an environmental choice when you choose how to use your economic energy in a centralized system that uses inflation. Deferred consumption = reduced return on energy invested; choosing energy efficient options while energy infrastructure costs are subsidies by fiat inflation results in energy production that is peg to inflation and exponential consumption relative to economic growth and diminishing capital costs. (Environmental destruction is rewarded); and consuming ethically is less efficient resulting in a tax on environmentally continues consumers relative to inflation.

So when a miner invests energy in mining he is making a value judgment, if he can make a better judgment he should always do that. Bitcoin is just energy, it is not wasted energy, it’s arguably the best most efficient use of energy given people have to freely give up real world uses of energy in order to obtain the virtual proof.

When you buy Bitcoin you send a signal to the miners to mine Bitcoin using their best judgment in making the most effective use of the available energy.

Where the energy comes from is not as important as how environmental efficiently its derived. Its impossible to know what energy is sustainable since we've been distorting the economic and environmental costs for over 100 years. Hopefully bitcoin and PoW can change that.
 
Last edited:

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
Yes, I read somewhere that newly minted coins were more valuable because that they were guaranteed to not havet been involved in any criminal activities.

I don't know were you got the number 40% fossil free, but I, too, guess that there is a quite sizeable portion that are fossil free. I just read that Bitfury are almost, or entirely, carbon neutral.
I pretty much pulled that number out of the air, it is just an estimate based on the large mining operations that I do know off that do use hydro electricity, Bitfury being one of the largest mostly reliant on hydro electricity.

@AdrianX Great post by the way. :)
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Erik Hedman sorry wish I had distilled it down. Ultimately everything we know is energy, the global deflation we see now is a reflection of the consumers at the bottom of the pyramid lack of ability to consume more energy, they simply cant afford it.

We are entering the end game of consumerism as an economic engine.

Sustainable and equitable energy consumption is the future, bitcoin mining looks like energy waste from the outside, but it's more like a counterweight to the overcompensation and misallocation of energy.
 
Last edited:

Erik Hedman

Member
Dec 27, 2015
27
32
Skövde, Sweden
sauerkraut.se
If bitcoin mining is a waste of energy or not is subjective. Like @AdrianX, my view is that it is not. In my view usage of energy like diamond mining is a waste of energy, but others would think the opposite.

Diamonds have a value because you have to put work into finding them because they are rare, the nounce that miners are looking for is also rare and needs work (energy) to find. I think that bitcoin is more valuable.

But the energy used wherever it is used, should, In my opinion, be renewable.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Erik Hedman

Diamonds are not a good example, they are not as rare as you think, and it’s just one company who created a monopoly on a huge stash they collected. The demand is artificially stimulated with clever marketing. The "Diamonds are forever" tag line used to perpetrate the cultural hack that you give a diamond for an engagement present is followed by the question, how many months salary should one invest in an engagement ring. That is just a marketing stories fabricated to crest a demand for stones.

If it wasn't for the De Beers monopoly and marketing, no one would waste energy mining diamonds.

To your point, I'm saying energy is energy. The "thing" that makes "renewable" energy more desirable than some other energy, is a value judgment. (Value judgments are subjective) If there are benefits to using renewable energy they have to prove more efficient in a decentralized way in a free market. I believe there are it’s just hard to see because we are using energy to sustain our economic system and our central planers believe we need to subsidize it to prevent unrest.

If you truly value bitcoin mined with renewable energy you are saying I value this energy more than that energy for a subjective reason. Inevitably you create an artificial demand for an artificial construct based on a subjective evaluation; this is unsustainable and will result in undesirable consequences, it results in the need for centralized planning and control. In the free market you will pay a premium for that value judgment and as a result you will be less efficient and your economic actions less effective. Also in a free market the energy that utilizes a free resource will be produced most cost effectively so already the market fro renewables is distorted. Obviously you are looking at this from a holistic sustainability perspective and trying to influence demand for renewable but you could be diminished for doing so.

Here is the an extreme example, I have coins mined using Hydro Power I think you’ll like that because its renewable and carbon free. In a free market we will price in your value judgment by bidding I think they are worth 2x the existing market value, you come back with a counteroffer of 1.5x market value I accept. If it stops there you pay an effective 50% subjective value tax.

If you can convince a centralized authority to make these value judgment law or influence the entire market, the market then reacts to this saying there is a demand for Bitcoin mined with Hydro Power, lets amuse we can circumvent fraud by using coloured coins to identify the green coins (incidentally this idea is why Mike Hearn is hated by a lot of the bitcoin community.)

We now all start using Green bitcoins as they are worth 1.5x other bitcoins what happens is the market reacts and starts building more hydro plants to produce the renewable energy to make these more valuable coins.

Later it tunes out that making more Hydro Power plants is extremely destructive for the environment destroying natural habitat it has decimating the eco-systems and is causing significant damage to other industries. The point being every investment in renewable has unintended consequences that are ultimately too numerous to manage. The fastest way to sustainability is use the energy we have as effectively as possible.

If bitcoin had to go to $10,000 today we would be making value judgments like should I turn on the light or read in the dark and spend that energy on mining bitcoin. The net result is we will become more efficient and sustainable the more scarce energy becomes.

Renewable solutions are the obvious evolution but it’s not easy to make them more profitable when the demand for cheaper energy is being subsidized by our economic system of growth.

If you really want bitcoin mined with fossil fuel free energy I have some for sale at a reasonably high premium.

personal I thin running a node using renewable energy is a fare grater contribution the environmental sustainability than buying fossil free mined bitcoin. :)
 

yrral86

Active Member
Sep 4, 2015
148
271
I will just say that love of fossil fuels and hatred of Obama is not universal in West Virginia. This is not the place to discuss the particular issues of our state, but I don't want people to make assumptions about WV based on a single opinion.
 

JVWVU

Active Member
Oct 10, 2015
142
177
I grew up coal miners kid, but I am in no way saying Coal shouldn't go by the wayside, but
until Nat Gas pipelines are up and running there is no way to completely remove Coal. But Nat Gas is now producing as much energy as Coal.

What is going to happen with Coal is complete bankruptcies, shut downs of future pensions and in 2 years when people are begging for work to feed their kids in coal country is going to realize $10 an hour is a good wage to go back into mines. At that point more competition in pricing will happen.

But looking at the majority of Bitcoin Miners behind the Great Wall of China then Coal would have to be imo the majority of electric using to produce coins, except for the one factory at the base of the dam. Its just cheaper there.

Fracking is getting more and more effective and its just now getting to the truly deep areas of Nat Gas - specifically Utica where I live. Utica is going to produce vasts amounts more Nat Gas with less and less work, infrastructure and human work hours. This is help decrease the cost of Nat Gas.

Solar, Wind, Hydro and Nuclear needs to be expanded over the next 10-20 to deal with peak demand and continuous running which is the issue with these.

IMO we are entering a GREAT DEVALUATION of the world markets and this industry is one of the first to go. And probably why most of us are here in Bitcoin.

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf
 

yrral86

Active Member
Sep 4, 2015
148
271
Now I can agree with that. It is not politics killing coal jobs, but economics, automation, and wage expectations. WV needs to accept this reality, but if the EPA wants us to move away from coal completely we could use some help retooling.
 

Members online