ArticlePublisher preview available

Rational mining limits Bitcoin emissions

DOI:10.1038/s41558-019-0533-6
Authors:
Nicolas Houy
Nicolas Houy
Nicolas Houy
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Read publisher preview
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.
  • A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
  • Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Nature Climate Change
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
matters arising
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0533-6
1University of Lyon, Lyon, France. 2CNRS, GATE Lyon Saint-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France. e-mail: houy@gate.cnrs.fr
The Bitcoin network is criticized for its energy consumption1. Mora
etal.2 estimated that the 2017 carbon footprint of Bitcoin was 69 Mt
of CO2-equivalent (MtCO2e). We criticize the inclusion of unprofit-
able mining rigs in their analysis—as a consequence, they highly
overestimate emissions.
Energy consumption in the Bitcoin network results from the
process of validating transactions. In the Bitcoin protocol, transac-
tions are included in ‘blocks'. For Bitcoin users to reach a consen-
sus on their order and content, blocks need to be published with
a proof of work; that is, a cryptographic proof that enough power
has been consumed to issue the current block. Miners (the agents
issuing blocks) are rewarded for their work. In 2017, the total earn-
ing by the miners was approximately 800,000 bitcoin (~US$3.4 bil-
lion, calculated using the exchange rate at the time each block was
mined). Given these stakes, and because miners are in competition
for rewards, it is easy to understand why mining is performed by
rational industries with big players optimizing the parameters that
influence their earnings.
When evaluating the energy consumption of the Bitcoin net-
work, the main source of uncertainty comes from the hardware
used. Today, mining is performed by application-specific integrated
circuit (ASIC) miners3. In their estimation, Mora etal.2 model the
hardware used by the Bitcoin miners as an average of a list of 62 ASIC
miners. Considering the price of electricity and the value of Bitcoin
for each block, we can see how this assumption is not realistic: a
rational miner would have turned off 14 of these 62 ASIC miners
more than 99% of the time, and only 12 of the 62 ASIC miners were
profitable over the whole year (see the Supplementary Information).
On average, the ASIC miners mentioned in Mora etal.2 were prof-
itable only about 42.5% of the time. Without applying any profit-
ability constraint, we compute that miners would have lost at least
US$3 billion in 2017 (US$3.4 billion in revenue minus US$6.4 bil-
lion spent on electricity, not accounting for hardware fixed costs).
When we remove the unprofitable (and thus also the most ineffi-
cient and polluting) hardware for each block, miners are found to
be profitable (US$1.4 billion spent on electricity for a profit of US$2
billion profit, not accounting for fixed costs). The resulting estima-
tion for the 2017 carbon footprint of Bitcoin is then 15.5 MtCO2e.
Considering the emissions from the least and most polluting hard-
ware among the profitable options for each block, we obtain values
of 2.9 and 35.1 MtCO2e, respectively. From these values, we estimate
that the 2017 carbon emission level given in Mora etal.2 is overesti-
mated by a factor of 4.5 (confidence interval: 2.0–23.9).
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this manuscript are available
in ref. 2 or provided in the Supplementary Code and Data.
Code availability
The code to identify rig profitability and recalculate the 2017 carbon
emissions is provided in the Supplementary Code and Data.
Received: 2 November 2018; Accepted: 19 June 2019;
Published online: 28 August 2019
References
1. Krause, M. J. & Tolaymat, T. Quantication of energy and carbon costs for
mining cryptocurrencies. Nat. Sustain. 1, 711–718 (2018).
2. Mora, C. etal. Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above
2 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 931–933(2018).
3. Taylor, M. B. e evolution of bitcoin hardware. Computer 50, 58–66 (2017).
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information is available for this paper at https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41558-019-0533-6.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to N.H.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited 2019
Rational mining limits Bitcoin emissions
Nicolas Houy 1,2
arising from Mora, C. etal. Nature Climate Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8 (2018)
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 9 | SEPTEMBER 2019 | 655 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 655
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
... Due to the distributed nature of cryptocurrency networks, obtaining close estimates of electrical energy consumption and carbon footprints is a difficult task. The main source of uncertainty is the mining equipment used [12] and the source of energy [13]. The minimum and maximum power demand estimates for the Bitcoin network according to various studies conducted between 2014 and 2018 have been compiled in [14]. ...
... In [59], the authors argued that if all mining facilities utilized the highly efficient ASIC-based mining devices as done in the KnCMiner Facility in Sweden, the overall Bitcoin mining process would consume nearly 1.46 TWh worldwide which is much lower than the current estimates of 184 TWh [11], 135.12 TWh [23] and 69.63 TWh [19] for 2021.This discrepancy demonstrates that inefficient mining devices are being used worldwide. Thus, a major contributor of energy consumption is the use of inefficient mining devices [12,14]. ...
... Due to the increasing difficulty of mining, several devices have been used since the introduction of Bitcoin starting from CPU in 2009, to GPU in 2010, FPGA in 2011 and ASIC since 2013 [9]. Table-VI presents these devices along with their hash rates, efficiencies [12], and minimum total energy consumption [14,59]. The total energy consumption corresponds to the amount of energy used when only that type of device is used for Bitcoin mining worldwide. ...
An Analysis of Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprints of Cryptocurrencies and Possible Solutions
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Feb 2022
There is an urgent need to control global warming caused by humans to achieve a sustainable future. $CO_2$ levels are rising steadily and while countries worldwide are actively moving toward the sustainability goals proposed during the Paris Agreement in 2015, we are still a long way to go from achieving a sustainable mode of global operation. The increased popularity of cryptocurrencies since the introduction of Bitcoin in 2009 has been accompanied by an increasing trend in greenhouse gas emissions and high electrical energy consumption. Popular energy tracking studies (e.g., Digiconomist and the Cambridge Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index (CBECI)) have estimated energy consumption ranges of 29.96 TWh to 135.12 TWh and 26.41 TWh to 176.98 TWh respectively for Bitcoin as of July 2021, which are equivalent to the energy consumption of countries such as Sweden and Thailand. The latest estimate by Digiconomist on carbon footprints shows a 64.18 Mt$CO_2$ emission by Bitcoin as of July 2021, close to the emissions by Greece and Oman. This review compiles estimates made by various studies from 2018 to 2021. We compare with the energy consumption and carbon footprints of these cryptocurrencies with countries around the world, and centralized transaction methods such as Visa. We identify the problems associated with cryptocurrencies, and propose solutions that can help reduce their energy usage and carbon footprints. Finally, we present case studies on cryptocurrency networks namely, Ethereum 2.0 and Pi Network, with a discussion on how they solve some of the challenges we have identified.
... Due to the distributed nature of cryptocurrency networks, obtaining close estimates of electrical energy consumption and carbon footprints is a difficult task. The main source of uncertainty is the mining equipment used [12] and the source of energy [13]. The minimum and maximum power demand estimates for the Bitcoin network according to various studies conducted between 2014 and 2018 have been compiled in [14]. ...
... In [59], the authors argued that if all mining facilities utilized the highly efficient ASIC-based mining devices as done in the KnCMiner Facility in Sweden, the overall Bitcoin mining process would consume nearly 1.46 TWh worldwide which is much lower than the current estimates of 184 TWh [11], 135.12 TWh [23] and 69.63 TWh [19] for 2021.This discrepancy demonstrates that inefficient mining devices are being used worldwide. Thus, a major contributor of energy consumption is the use of inefficient mining devices [12,14]. ...
... Due to the increasing difficulty of mining, several devices have been used since the introduction of Bitcoin starting from CPU in 2009, to GPU in 2010, FPGA in 2011 and ASIC since 2013 [9]. Table-6 presents these devices along with their hash rates, efficiencies [12], and minimum total energy consumption [14,59]. The total energy consumption corresponds to the amount of energy used when only that type of device is used for Bitcoin mining worldwide. ...
An Analysis of Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprints of Cryptocurrencies and Possible Solutions
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2022
There is an urgent need to control global warming caused by humans to achieve a sustainable future. CO 2 levels are rising steadily and while countries worldwide are actively moving toward the sustainability goals proposed during the Paris Agreement in 2015, we are still a long way to go from achieving a sustainable mode of global operation. The increased popularity of cryptocurrencies since the introduction of Bitcoin in 2009 has been accompanied by an increasing trend in greenhouse gas emissions and high electrical energy consumption. Popular energy tracking studies (e.g., Digiconomist and the Cambridge Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index (CBECI)) have estimated energy consumption ranges of 29.96 TWh to 135.12 TWh and 26.41 TWh to 176.98 TWh respectively for Bitcoin as of July 2021, which are equivalent to the energy consumption of countries such as Sweden and Thailand. The latest estimate by Digiconomist on carbon footprints shows a 64.18 MtCO 2 emission by Bitcoin as of July 2021, close to the emissions by Greece and Oman. This review compiles estimates made by various studies from 2018 to 2021. We compare with the energy consumption and carbon footprints of these cryptocurrencies with countries around the world, and centralized transaction methods such as Visa. We identify the problems associated with cryptocurrencies, and propose solutions that can help reduce their energy usage and carbon footprints. Finally, we present case studies on cryptocurrency networks namely, Ethereum 2.0 and Pi Network, with a discussion on how they solve some of the challenges we have identified.
... Very illustrative of the above, for the purpose of economically quantifying this impact, is what is collected by [20] in his study that points out that "the results illustrate a scenario where each 1 USD of cryptocurrency coin value created would be responsible for 0.66 UDS in health and climate damages". On the other hand, other authors such as [21] defend that implausible projections are being made, which are overestimating Bitcoin CO2 emissions in the short term; who are joined by [22] who likewise criticizes "the inclusion of unprofitable mining platforms [...], thus greatly overestimating emissions". However, despite the results reported by [18][19][20], there is currently a great debate in the scientific community about the real impact of cryptocurrency mining on the environment, as other authors, such as [21,22], argue that this impact is overestimated. ...
... On the other hand, other authors such as [21] defend that implausible projections are being made, which are overestimating Bitcoin CO2 emissions in the short term; who are joined by [22] who likewise criticizes "the inclusion of unprofitable mining platforms [...], thus greatly overestimating emissions". However, despite the results reported by [18][19][20], there is currently a great debate in the scientific community about the real impact of cryptocurrency mining on the environment, as other authors, such as [21,22], argue that this impact is overestimated. Furthermore, [23] indicate that in addition to Bitcoin, the expansion of the entire blockchain-based industry must be taken into account when calculating the environmental impact, and they put forward six scenarios. ...
Cryptocurrency Mining from an Economic and Environmental Perspective. Analysis of the Most and Least Sustainable Countries
Article
Full-text available
  • Jul 2021
There are different studies that point out that the price of electricity is a fundamental factor that will influence the mining decision, due to the cost it represents. There is also an ongoing debate about the pollution generated by cryptocurrency mining, and whether or not the use of renewable energies will solve the problem of its sustainability. In our study, starting from the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), we have considered several determinants of cryptocurrency mining: energy price, how that energy is generated, temperature, legal constraints, human capital, and R&D&I. From this, via linear regression, we recalculated this EPI by including the above factors that affect cryptocurrency mining in a sustainable way. The study determines, once the EPI has been readjusted , that the most sustainable countries to perform cryptocurrency mining are Denmark and Ger-many. In fact, of the top ten countries eight of them are European (Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Austria, and the United Kingdom); and the remaining two are Asian (South Korea and Japan).
... The associated electricity consumption and carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining have received attention from researchers and policymakers alike. [1][2][3] Previous research shows that the electricity input to generate a $1 market value by Bitcoin mining (17 MJ) is higher than that of precious metal mining (5,7, and 9 MJ for gold, platinum, and rare earth oxides, respectively) 1 . In total, the annual electricity consumption of Bitcoin mining (46 TWh in 2018) reaches the level of Portugal, and annual CO2 emissions (22 megatons in 2018) match the level of a midsize city in the U.S. 2 As Bitcoin becomes a more salient element of the global financial system, its growing carbon footprint has raised concerns about its role in climate change. ...
... In total, the annual electricity consumption of Bitcoin mining (46 TWh in 2018) reaches the level of Portugal, and annual CO2 emissions (22 megatons in 2018) match the level of a midsize city in the U.S. 2 As Bitcoin becomes a more salient element of the global financial system, its growing carbon footprint has raised concerns about its role in climate change. [4][5][6][7] However, predicting Bitcoin mining's future electricity consumption and carbon footprint is associated with two key challenges. ...
Bitcoin's future carbon footprint
Preprint
  • Nov 2020
The carbon footprint of Bitcoin has drawn wide attention, but Bitcoin's long-term impact on the climate remains uncertain. Here we present a framework to overcome uncertainties in previous estimates and project Bitcoin's electricity consumption and carbon footprint in the long term. If we assume Bitcoin's market capitalization grows in line with the one of gold, we find that the annual electricity consumption of Bitcoin may increase from 50 to 400 TWh between 2020 and 2100. The future carbon footprint of Bitcoin strongly depends on the decarbonization pathway of the electricity sector. If the electricity sector achieves carbon neutrality by 2050, Bitcoin's carbon footprint has peaked already. However, in the business-as-usual scenario, emissions sum up to 2 gigatons until 2100, an amount comparable to 6% of global emissions in 2018. Therefore, we also discuss policy instruments to reduce Bitcoin's future carbon footprint.
... In 2018, Mora et al. [24] claimed that bitcoin emissions could push global warming above two centigrades. The analysis and results of the paper by Mora et al. have been debunked at least by Houy [25], Masanet et al. [26], and Dittmar et al. [27]. According to Houy, rational mining limits Bitcoin emissions, and the average of a list of 62 ASIC miners used by Mora De Vries [28] estimated in 2018 that the Bitmain company, with a claimed market share of 70%, could produce up to 6.5 million bitcoin mining machines (Antminer S9) in 2018. ...
A Survey on Technologies Which Make Bitcoin Greener or More Justified
Article
  • Jul 2022
According to recent estimates, one bitcoin transaction consumes as much energy as 1.5 million Visa transactions. Why is bitcoin using so much energy? Most of the energy is used during the bitcoin mining process, which serves at least two significant purposes: a) distributing new cryptocurrency coins to the cryptoeconomy and b) securing the Bitcoin blockchain ledger. In reality, the comparison of bitcoin transactions to Visa transactions is not that simple. The amount of transactions in the Bitcoin network is not directly connected to the amount of bitcoin mining power nor the energy consumption of those mining devices; for example, it is possible to multiply the number of bitcoin transactions per second without increasing the mining power and the energy consumption. Bitcoin is not only “digital money for hackers”. It has very promising future potential as a global reserve currency and a method to make the World Wide Web (WWW) immune to cyberattacks such as the Distributed Denial-of-Service attacks. This survey approached cryptocurrencies’ various technological and environmental issues from many different perspectives. To make various cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin (BTC) and ether (ETH), greener and more justified, what technological solutions do we have? We found that cryptocurrency mining might be cleaner than is generally expected. There is also a plan to make a vast renewable energy source available by combining Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion and Bitcoin mining. There are plans to use unconventional computing methods (quantum computing, reversible computing, ternary computing, optical computing, analog computing) to solve some of the issues regarding the vast energy consumption of conventional computing (including cryptocurrency mining). We think using spare computing cycles for grid computing efforts is justified. For example, there are billions of smartphones in the world. Many smartphones are being recharged every day. If this daily recharging period of twenty to sixty minutes would be used for grid computing, for example, finding new cures to cancer, it would probably be a significant breakthrough for medical research simulations. We call cryptocurrency communities to research and develop grid computing and unconventional computing methods for the most significant cryptocurrencies: bitcoin (BTC) and ether (ETH).
... 5 Relative to the aforementioned literature, the reported point estimates (and PIs) also represent a downward revision of the results reported by Mora et al. (2018) and are broadly in line with figures from Foteinis (2018), reporting global emissions for Bitcoin and Ethereum for 2017 of 43.9 MtCO 2 , or from Stoll et al. (2019), reporting annual carbon emissions for Bitcoin mining in 2018 in the range from 22.0 to 22.9 MtCO 2 . Our estimates further revise downward the 2017 estimates provided by Houy (2019) or Dittmar and Praktiknjo (2019), reporting 15.5 MtCO 2 e for 2017, or those from Masanet et al. (2019), who reported, for 2017, an estimate of 15.7 MtCO 2 e. What makes them nevertheless worrying is recent evidence, e.g., from integrated weather-climate models (CMIP6), feeding into the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2021 reported in Williams et al. (2020). ...
Machine Learning the Carbon Footprint of Bitcoin Mining
Article
Full-text available
  • Feb 2022
Building on an economic model of rational Bitcoin mining, we measured the carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining power consumption using feed-forward neural networks. We found associated carbon footprints of 2.77, 16.08 and 14.99 MtCO2e for 2017, 2018 and 2019 based on a novel bottom-up approach, which (i) conform with recent estimates, (ii) lie within the economic model bounds while (iii) delivering much narrower prediction intervals and yet (iv) raise alarming concerns, given recent evidence (e.g., from climate–weather integrated models). We demonstrate how machine learning methods can contribute to not-for-profit pressing societal issues, such as global warming, where data complexity and availability can be overcome.
... Jing et al. [12] confirmed this increasing trend and explained that Bitcoin's mining operation might affect the ability of big nation like China or USA to reach their objectives with regards the CO2 emissions reduction. Houy [23] wrote that Mora et al. [21] over-estimated their results by 4.5% whereas Dittmar and Praktiknjo [24] or Masanet et al. [25] wrote that the electricity consumed by the crypto-mining industry should be estimated on the hashrate (computational power of the mining network) rather than on the volume on transactions on the market. Despite these methodological debates, the empirical literature on the topic generally confirms the growing trend in the Bitcoin' s electricity consumption and more 5 It is worth mentioning that the first version of this manuscript has been written before these bans. ...
Proof-of-work based blockchain technology and Anthropocene: An undermined situation?
Article
In the increasing literature dealing with the potential applications of blockchain technology in the energy sector, one key aspect is under-estimated: the use of renewal energies to fuel the energy consumed by the blockchain technology. The vast majority of blockchain-based projects use the Proof-of-Work (POW) consensus algorithm, which paradoxically is well-known to consume a high level of electricity - how can a new solution promote green energy with transactions that are validated through a non-green process (POW protocol)? This perspective discusses this apparent contradiction by debating the extent to which the cryptographic validation of the POW-based blockchain technology (illustrated by Bitcoin here) can really fuelled with green electricity. I explain that the vast majority of the literature dealing with the ecological influence of Bitcoin mainly focus on the energetic dimension under-estimating the environmental impact. Integrating research about Life Cycle Assessments, I suggest here a conceptual framework rejecting the implicit assumption that renewable energy fuelled mining industry would make POW based operations greener. In the light of the recent ban of mining operations in China and Iran, the issue discussed in this article is timely for policymakers who need to promote the development of standards for mining operations related equipment in order to avoid potential negative environmental side effects.
Blockchain, climate damage, and death: Policy interventions to reduce the carbon emissions, mortality, and net-zero implications of non-fungible tokens and Bitcoin
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2022
The art industry has commercialised and popularised non-fungible tokens (NFTs), with the volume and value of NFT transactions rapidly growing to US$ 10.7 billion in Q3 2021. The increase in NFT transactions has drawn the attention of the art market to the consequent carbon emissions resulting from verifying transactions in proof-of-work blockchains supporting NFT transactions. With CO2-related deaths attributable to NFT transactions, social pressure from the art market has helped to progress the switch away from the deliberately polluting proof-of-work blockchains to more sustainable consensus protocols. Nonetheless, many popular types of blockchain have resisted the pressure to decrease their environmental impact, including Bitcoin, whose attributed 2021 annual emissions will produce emissions responsible for around 19,000 future deaths. In response, recent global policy interventions have employed legal and fiscal tools to reduce the carbon impact of some or all types of blockchains. Linking the damage caused by proof-of-work blockchains to climate change and human mortality, this study examines the recent policy interventions designed to motivate a shift in blockchain consensus protocols and promote miners' energy efficiency to mitigate environmental damage. This article further explores available policy intervention options that are currently not utilised.
Bitcoin and Global Climate Change: Emissions Beyond Borders
Preprint
Full-text available
  • May 2021
Bitcoin is a virtual, decentralized currency based on Blockchain technology. Regardless of where you send Bitcoin, the greenhouse gas emissions stemming from these transactions are distributed around the world. Furthermore, with the increasing public and institutional interest in Bitcoin, the value, complexity of Bitcoin mining, Blockchain networks, as well as the energy required for Bitcoin mining have been rapidly increasing. Here we show the global distribution of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Bitcoin mining across the globe. We also estimated the carbon footprint of Bitcoin mining per transaction, per country, and per year for the last six years. The carbon footprint estimations of Bitcoin mining are calculated with consideration of the global supply-chain of Bitcoin mining around the world. According to our systematic estimations, carbon emissions are in rapid increase and there is a significant discrepancy between the locations of Bitcoin holders and the locations of emissions. China plays a major role both in emissions due to overall global mining and as a major manufacturer/supplier of Bitcoin mining equipment for all Bitcoin mining countries.
Uneven development, crypto-regionalism, and the (un-)tethering of nature in Quebec
Article
Since emerging in 2009, cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, have captured the imaginations of many investors and users in accumulating private wealth detached from government control and oversight. This article examines how the rise of bitcoin has particular geographies and trajectories of uneven development across the globe. The generation (or ‘mining’) of cryptocurrencies is computationally-intensive, requiring computer hardware, cool air and cheap energy. Adopting the case study of Quebec, Canada, we show how these variables interact to produce a relationship between digital currencies, economic imaginaries and space in the regions where cryptomining is clustered. We argue that these new geographies of cryptocurrency ‘mining’ leave residual marks on the regions where they are located but remain highly mobile – moving from location to location in search of the cheap energy that supports private accumulation. Adopting an illustrative case study of Quebec, Canada, we work to render visible the materiality of cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin. Far from existing both nowhere and everywhere, the generation of bitcoin is foregrounded in local contexts and regional economic imaginaries with both spatial and social implications for the cities and towns where cryptomining takes place. We conclude with a call for further research into this emergent ‘crypto-regionalism’ and its consequences.
Quantification of energy and carbon costs for mining cryptocurrencies
Article
Full-text available
  • Nov 2018
There are now hundreds of cryptocurrencies in existence and the technological backbone of many of these currencies is blockchain—a digital ledger of transactions. The competitive process of adding blocks to the chain is computation-intensive and requires large energy input. Here we demonstrate a methodology for calculating the minimum power requirements of several cryptocurrency networks and the energy consumed to produce one US dollar’s (US$) worth of digital assets. From 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2018, we estimate that mining Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and Monero consumed an average of 17, 7, 7 and 14 MJ to generate one US$, respectively. Comparatively, conventional mining of aluminium, copper, gold, platinum and rare earth oxides consumed 122, 4, 5, 7 and 9 MJ to generate one US$, respectively, indicating that (with the exception of aluminium) cryptomining consumed more energy than mineral mining to produce an equivalent market value. While the market prices of the coins are quite volatile, the network hashrates for three of the four cryptocurrencies have trended consistently upward, suggesting that energy requirements will continue to increase. During this period, we estimate mining for all 4 cryptocurrencies was responsible for 3–15 million tonnes of CO2 emissions. © 2018, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2018
Bitcoin is a power-hungry cryptocurrency that is increasingly used as an investment and payment system. Here we show that projected Bitcoin usage, should it follow the rate of adoption of other broadly adopted technologies, could alone produce enough CO2 emissions to push warming above 2 °C within less than three decades.
The Evolution of Bitcoin Hardware
Article
Since its deployment in 2009, Bitcoin has achieved remarkable success and spawned hundreds of other cryptocurrencies. The author traces the evolution of the hardware underlying the system, from early GPU-based homebrew machines to today’s datacenters powered by application-specific integrated circuits. These ASIC clouds provide a glimpse into planet-scale computing’s future.