BITCOIN

Adyinvestment

Section62 said:

Is all landfill methane captured and used?  No.

Is Bitcoin required for methane (and other LFG) capture and processing to happen?  No. (third BiB)

If your second BiB ("not many") is true, then the EPA must be doing a pretty lousy job at enforcing their existing regulations.

Across much of Europe LFG capture and processing is the norm.  In 2018 the EU countries produced over 2500 ktoe of primary energy from landfill gas -

https://www.statista.com/statistics/863329/landfill-gas-energy-production-in-the-european-union-eu/

So I'd like to understand how do you define "not many"?

The fourth BiB is the true non-argument in this discussion so far.  I anticipate someone pointing out the EPA regulations only relate to landfills "of a certain size".  And it is true that not all methane from all landfills is captured and used for productive purposes.  But there is a problem in that the production of methane from landfill varies over time, and not all landfill produces methane in usable amounts.

If your argument were that only landfills producing uneconomic amounts of methane should be used for methane-to-bitcoin then I might agree with you.  But your argument that we should be "thankful" [to Bitcoin, for saving us] until all landfill [methane] is used for "everyday uses" is the kind of argument which just makes Bitcoin look ridiculous.

That is a lot of words, but I don't understand what your argument to my point is?

It is pretty clear that at this time, using methane gas from landfill is not taking any energy away from anything else, and if you take into account poorer countries probably never will. All it can possibly do at this point in time is help.

Section62

Adyinvestment said:

That is a lot of words, but I don't understand what your argument to my point is?

In summary:  That you made some assertions which aren't supported by the facts.

For details, see my previous post.

Adyinvestment said:

It is pretty clear that at this time, using methane gas from landfill is not taking any energy away from anything else, and if you take into account poorer countries probably never will. All it can possibly do at this point in time is help.

You are still assuming (wrongly) that nothing is being done about/with the methane.

Maybe there is more of an issue in poorer countries, but the article refers to a pilot scheme in California. 

California isn't a poor country.

If the pilot scheme was in Bangladesh or India and well away from a population centre (where the energy could be used for everyday purposes) then you'd have a really good point.

Adyinvestment

Well, you made me check.

California landfills have less that 20% with LFG projects and there are a further under 10% candidates, this leaves over 70% of landfills with no plans for the methane, so plenty of landfills (I have no idea how to check for suitability) for them to utilise.

Section62

Adyinvestment said:

Well, you made me check.

California landfills have less that 20% with LFG projects and there are a further under 10% candidates, this leaves over 70% of landfills with no plans for the methane, so plenty of landfills (I have no idea how to check for suitability) for them to utilise.

So plenty of landfills, but no idea about the amount of methane produced by that 70%, nor whether any of them could produce usable quantities.

A convincing argument so far.

At least we've moved beyond the claims that landfill methane isn't being dealt with, and that it isn't already being used for energy needs.

Adyinvestment

BlackRock starting to get heavily involved with Bitcoin, after the news last week regarding their partnership with Coinbase for their institutional clients, they are now about to offer a "spot" Bitcoin private trust (for their US clients)

https://www.ft.com/content/0948f1a9-ad0b-4126-9ae8-5ce4e212c07e

Malthusian

Zola. said:

Malthusian said:

A reduced increase in supply is still an increase in supply. 

No - it just means there are more players fighting over the same block reward. Thats it. 

However you dress it up, Vespene and co taking money off the table by mining coins leaves less to go around and cash out for people who currently hold Bitcoin or buy it with fiat or fiat's worth.
Didn't we already do the "greedy bankers BlackRock invest in product that will liberate us from greedy bankers" thing? And it's not clear why it makes sense for rich people to invest in a trust holding Bitcoin rather than simply buying some Bitcoin. Have they forgotten when the major exchanges froze the accounts of Russian oligarchs? Not your keys not your coins bro.

Zola.

Malthusian said:

Zola. said:

Malthusian said:

A reduced increase in supply is still an increase in supply. 

No - it just means there are more players fighting over the same block reward. Thats it. 

However you dress it up, Vespene and co taking money off the table by mining coins leaves less to go around and cash out for people who currently hold Bitcoin or buy it with fiat or fiat's worth.
Didn't we already do the "greedy bankers BlackRock invest in product that will liberate us from greedy bankers" thing? And it's not clear why it makes sense for rich people to invest in a trust holding Bitcoin rather than simply buying some Bitcoin. Have they forgotten when the major exchanges froze the accounts of Russian oligarchs? Not your keys not your coins bro.

However you dress it up, the more people getting into Bitcoin, the greater the adoption, the greater the price, lindy effect bro.

Agree with you on Blackrock though, they just care about the expensive management fees that will come with it for the lazy/scared institutional investors. I dont know why an institution wouldn't just set up a multi sig.. laziness and lack of education on the subject no doubt.

With Blackrock it will most likely pave the way for a spot bitcoin etf  in the US too. 

Frequentlyhere

I'm surprised that Bitcoin supporters are surprised that those not in thrall to BTC are less than impressed by the waste recycling thing. 

The thing is, if you don't see any value to BTC then any usage above zero is a total waste. It apparently uses 0.3% of global electricity, which especially in the current circumstances is absolutely galling.

So, trumpeting that some new venture, at it's most charitable interpretation, might one day in the future reduce that figure ever so slightly by harnessing some energy which is difficult to otherwise use, rather just invites the response " Or....you could just stop the pointless activity?"

So the challenge as ever is to try and find any sort of purpose for the thing. That would impress and then we can all make excuses to justify whatever level of electricity it uses. 

Zola.

Frequentlyhere said:

I'm surprised that Bitcoin supporters are surprised that those not in thrall to BTC are less than impressed by the waste recycling thing. 

The thing is, if you don't see any value to BTC then any usage above zero is a total waste. It apparently uses 0.3% of global electricity, which especially in the current circumstances is absolutely galling.

So, trumpeting that some new venture, at it's most charitable interpretation, might one day in the future reduce that figure ever so slightly by harnessing some energy which is difficult to otherwise use, rather just invites the response " Or....you could just stop the pointless activity?"

So the challenge as ever is to try and find any sort of purpose for the thing. That would impress and then we can all make excuses to justify whatever level of electricity it uses. 

Yeah, I suppose the world's first singular global money, that is fully decentralised, incorruptible by governments and banks,  open to anyone with a mobile phone and without a bank account (2 Billion unbanked globally) has no absolutely purpose 

Comical!

Adyinvestment

Zola. said:

Frequentlyhere said:

I'm surprised that Bitcoin supporters are surprised that those not in thrall to BTC are less than impressed by the waste recycling thing. 

The thing is, if you don't see any value to BTC then any usage above zero is a total waste. It apparently uses 0.3% of global electricity, which especially in the current circumstances is absolutely galling.

So, trumpeting that some new venture, at it's most charitable interpretation, might one day in the future reduce that figure ever so slightly by harnessing some energy which is difficult to otherwise use, rather just invites the response " Or....you could just stop the pointless activity?"

So the challenge as ever is to try and find any sort of purpose for the thing. That would impress and then we can all make excuses to justify whatever level of electricity it uses. 

Yeah, I suppose the world's first singular global money, that is fully decentralised, incorruptible by governments and banks,  open to anyone with a mobile phone and without a bank account (2 Billion unbanked globally) has no absolutely purpose 

Comical!

I do genuinely believe that if it was reported that Bitcoin in some fantasy cured cancer (I am not being serious here guys - just pointing this out as you have to watch your words carefully in this thread) that it would still get bashed here.