I asked my question because I doubted the assertion being made without any math to back it up. It seems unlikely that

1) this could ever be a significant enough amount of Bitcoin mining energy to make Bitcoin "carbon neutral", and

2) if it ever did become a significant source of energy for Bitcoin, it would likely also be viable for other uses, eliminating the carbon offset argument

I'm not doubting that you can put a cheap and inefficient boiler generator on top of a methane flare and label it "green energy."

1) North America has lots of this kind of energy. Gigawatts/hr being spewed into the atmosphere as an unprofitable waste byproduct as is.

2) Transporting this energy is a cost. Storing and then transporting the energy is a cost. And other kinds of computation on site requires much greater infrastructure, like internet and big box data centers, which these remote sites do not have. Bitcoin mining barely needs any internet bandwidth and doesn't need a low latency connection either. It creates an asset that can be easily sold to people willing to buy that asset at a price far greater than the costs to create it.

Its important to understand that these are partnerships between two companies.

The existing energy producer who is taking a risk on a dangerous operation, largely technophobic and takes far too long to understand how it benefits them. And a separate crypto mining company searching for cheap energy, driven purely by the market.

The mining company sees the energy. The energy producer needs to reduce their waste byproducts.

Its semantics and pure coincidence about whether “less hydrocarbons billowing directly into the atmosphere” meets your criteria for “carbon offset” or “green energy”, its also what happens

Interesting framing. I'd frame it as Bitcoin having a local unexpected environmental positive externality. (As opposed to negative, which it has most other places without an unplugged methane leak.)

It's not negative or unexpected. Bitcoin naturally uses the cheapest energy it can find (arbitrage), which usually ends up being stranded energy. Something like a third of all electricity generated is wasted. So the idea that Bitcoin is unique compared to any other arbitrary & subjective use of energy is just anti-Bitcoin propaganda & green dis-information.

Whereas it may be difficult for one reason or another to transmit energy from where it's most abundant (a desert, or other remote areas), it's not hard to co-locate miners in those places & incentivize further development & utilization of that energy resource.

Does the expression "perverse incentives" mean anything?

This argument is like energy incentives in the world were mostly fine, except that some energy was stranded and could only be picked up by Bitcoin.

For something that is supposed to "change the System" it for sure is often pitched like the System can never change. That missing (enforcement of) regulation makes it economically beneficial to just vent methane without even flaring, is not something to celebrate. It's nice that the incentives lined up decently, this time. We should work on fixing the incentives so the methane can stay in the ground where it belongs. Don't dig that well.

Say, you have access to cheap hydro power somewhere. The powerlines are not yet completed to export the electricity to where it could be more useful. Along comes a Bitcoin factory and sets up shop. Suddenly, the incentives are not in favour of ever completing that powerline, for benefits amortized over decades, when you can sell that sweet, sweet Bitcoin today.

Of course, the owners of the Bitcoin factory would never try to exert their influence and try to keep their cheap source of hydro power, or keep the methane flowing. /s

I will make sure to bring popcorn for the future culture wars between ETH and BTC, now that their incentives are so divorced.

> For something that is supposed to "change the System" it for sure is often pitched like the System can never change. That missing (enforcement of) regulation makes it economically beneficial to just vent methane without even flaring, is not something to celebrate. It's nice that the incentives lined up decently, this time. We should work on fixing the incentives so the methane can stay in the ground where it belongs. Don't dig that well.

Bitcoin was never billed to change that system, and yet it is anyway.

You're trying to let perfect get in the way of good, failing all modes of consensus until the world is uninhabitable, while this just works and fulfills the goals of all political parties at the moment: reducing emissions and being economical.

Bitcoin mining on existing fracking sites is a stop-gap solution at best, right now nobody is making new wells with the perk of adding miners or renting space to mining firms. Right now, the fracking operations are just meeting their climate goals, the captured state regulator no longer needs to be in the awkward position to rubber stamp emissions exemptions, the governor no longer needs to run interference for the whole fracking industry. Its only a stop gap solution because if 10x more wells were made after a 90% drop in emissions, then we're at the same place we were, so if you begin seeing that then be vigilant about that. But thats really not a bitcoin issue, thats a fracking issue that you're putting on bitcoin because you've had zero influence your entire life on the oil and gas sector, the separate higher standard doesn't make sense though, as - for now - this stop-gap solution is here and working. "oh no but its bitcoin, that other thing I spent so much of my energy hating" cope, my guy. this is working.

> Bitcoin naturally uses the cheapest energy it can find

As opposed to everybody else, who naturally use the most expensive energy they can find.

In order to argue that wicked corporations are wasting massive amounts energy for profit, yes this requires the idea of finding very cheap power, i.e. something like off-peak or excess.

miners are driven purely by the market to find cheap energy sources

its not altruism by any means and it doesn't matter

this is what happens, frame it any way you prefer, it doesn’t really matter as the constant is that North America is the best market for this

all levels of government are noticing and investors are noticing and they all need the sustainability framing, I don’t think I had made any framing in my reply

Articles that talk about the “amount” of energy bitcoin mining uses are going to keep coming out, if you’re more familiar with that framing, the source of energy has been more important than the amount for a very long time, to convey environmental impact, and this is just one example

I don't think I get your point. To me, any renewable power going into bitcoin mining, is contributing nothing except "securing the blockchain".

I don't even have a stake in this game, except living on the same planet as everyone else. And it's getting warmer. Any power spent on bitcoin is power not spent solving more practical problems elsewhere.

As I wrote in my other reply to your other comment

You're trying to let perfect get in the way of good

The power is never ever ever going to be spent on anything else, the energy used would be purely hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. This is what is happening for decades. Absolutely zero sentiment and protest has or would change that.

Bitcoin mining has changed that. If that is what makes you think of a solution that nobody else has thought of for decades, just because bitcoin makes your tummy ache, be our guest.

> To me, any renewable power going into bitcoin mining, is contributing nothing

I also think it will be helpful for you to get the terms accurate, this benefit comes from stranded energy, using this energy is more sustainable. This doesn't necessarily mean renewable or clean, it can though. Since we are talking about reducing methane emission, this isn't a renewable or clean source, it just has 90% drop in methane and hydrocarbons going into the atmosphere while stripping them apart in catalytic converters just like cars do. This is good!

Exactly and a play for corporate strategy.