TAtadzik_·Jan 17, 2021
None of the farms analyzed in the article are in Mongolia: https://github.com/Camilo-Mora/Bitcoin/blob/master/Katie_Tab...
In Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C: study from 2018Camilo-Mora
Bitcoin
R2018–2021
Camilo-Mora / Bitcoin
Bitcoin
Code used for the yearly calculations of CO2e from Bitcoin mining
5Distinct people
5Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
19GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
Code used for the yearly calculations of CO2e from Bitcoin mining
GitHub
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by month5 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2018-10-29 19:31:39 UTC to 2021-01-17 21:53:44 UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2018 | 2018-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Nov 2018 | 2018-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Dec 2018 | 2018-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2019 | 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 2019 | 2019-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2019 | 2019-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 2019 | 2019-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| May 2019 | 2019-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 2019 | 2019-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2019 | 2019-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2019 | 2019-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2019 | 2019-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2019 | 2019-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 2019 | 2019-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2019-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 2019 | 2019-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2020 | 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Feb 2020 | 2020-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2020 | 2020-03-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Apr 2020 | 2020-04-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| May 2020 | 2020-05-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jun 2020 | 2020-06-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jul 2020 | 2020-07-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aug 2020 | 2020-08-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 2020-09-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2020 | 2020-10-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 2020 | 2020-11-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dec 2020 | 2020-12-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jan 2021 | 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC | 2021-02-01 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
5 sourcesNo, Bitcoin won't raise global average temperatures by 2°C. This Nature article was debunked by other researchers. I too was asked to review it (recently, post-publication) and the gist of what they did wrong in their analysis is:
* They overestimate (probably by 3x-5x) the present power consumption of miners because they assume the distribution of types of mining machine is homogenous in this table: https://github.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/blob/master/Randi_Tabl... (when in fact 60-70% of the mining power comes from a single row in this table: Antminer S9). This error causes their calculated average efficiency (J/GH) to be much overestimated as their dataset contains mostly inefficient obsolete ASICs
* They overestimate future power consumption by ~50x by assuming it grows linearly with the transaction rate (in reality it doesn't). Power co
Read the rest
nsumption grows with miners revenues, proportional to {block rewards + transaction fees}. Fees account for currently ~2% of revenues (average of last 60 days). Rewards decline over time, so that fees will eventually account for close to 100% of revenues, which will happen on the authors timeline of 100 years. So if fees per transaction remaimed constant, we could see a 50x tx rate growth with no increase of power consumption.
* They assume the proportion of CO2 emissions per kWh never improves over the next 100 years (great progress of renewables coming to a sudden stop?), and that Bitcoin consumes more fossil fuels than what the entire world currently consumes (infinite fossil fuel reserves?). It is not unrealistic to imagine the proportion of CO2 per kWh could be in a century 20% of what it is today.
Overall, these errors combined mean their scenario overestimates CO2 emissions by a factor of about a thousand: (3 to 5) x 50 ÷ 20% = 750x to 1250x
Edit: simplified bullet point #2
Full text here: http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/s41558-018-0321-8
Data & analysis is here: https://github.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/
The argument is:
1. Assume each mining pool's users are in the pool's home country, and use their country's average mix of fuel sources, and use the hardware in supplementary table 1 (which I haven't found), then Bitcoin emitted 69 MtCO2e in 2017.
2. Assume Bitcoin's usage increases at the same rate as a sample of other technologies (television, smart phone, washer+dryer...)
3. Assume that Bitcoin's carbon footprint increases with usage.
Then you can multiply the projected usage by the yearly carbon footprint, and estimate the effect on temperature, at 2°C.
A good counterargument is that Bitcoin's mining footprint is not proportional to usage. It's proportional to price * block reward = profitability.
However, this
Read the rest
might balance out in the end. The block reward is decreasing exponentially every 4 years, but the price increases faster than usage. And when the block reward drops to zero, transaction fees will become the sole incentive for mining, which are proportional to usage.
Actual source since this is almost impossible to find from the link above:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8
https://github.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/
Edit: The study seems to have a major flaw in that it ignores the effect of the block subsidy in its calculations: Though it mentions the block reward halvenings, it ignores them in the CO2e calculations. They basically calculate the CO2e emissions per transaction in 2017, then multiply that by a predicted number of transactions that will be made in future years [1]. Currently, transaction fees only account for 1-2% of the miner reward - (in 2017 on average 17% of profit was the fees, in 2018 6% and in the past 6 months only 1.5% [2] )
The study makes predictions in a very long term (15+ years) - but they ignore that what is currently 95+% of the reward (and thus 95% of the ene
Read the rest
rgy used) automatically halves every four years. This ratio will forcibly change over time - in 20 years bitcoin is either dead or fees will account for almost all of the reward - which means you have to divide the predicted emissions in the paper by at least 5.
In the long term the amount of energy one BTC transaction burns is pretty much the same as the fee paid for that transaction times the cheapest electricity in the world.
[1] "The CO2e emissions of projected Bitcoin usage were estimated using the CO2e emissions for Bitcoin transactions in 2017 as a reference. We randomly sampled blocks mined in 2017 until their total number of transactions were equal to the projected number of transactions, then we added the CO2e emissions from computing such randomly selected blocks. The approach was repeated 1,000 times."
[2]: https://gist.github.com/phiresky/a6755c650b3bbb340c4d641f89f...