450kg of CO2 is produced per bitcoin transaction. Why the world needs to, and will, move to SAFECoin

Anyone else feel uncomfortable with this…


Full article :

Here is what a solid block of 1KG of CO2 looks like.


550 Liters when it expands to room temperature.
That’s about 2 bath tubs.
So, 1 bitcoin transaction creates 900 bath tubs of CO2 gas at room temperature.
This is what 250,000 liters (one bitcoin transaction) looks like…



Very useful to point all this out. Maidsafe should probably tweet about this too.


I don’t worry much about CO2 at all. Levels have been much higher and lower, the planet much hotter and much colder. Plantlife and algae thrive in high CO2 environments. There other gases that are more concerning:

We should focus more on keeping the planet clean/free from other pollutants like the gas above, plastics, toxic chemicals etc. CO2 is really quite harmless in comparison.


I have made a quick calculation and if the whole Bitcoin network now was made by the most efficient hardware (44TH / 2kW), the running network would have the consumption of 4 500 MWh. When we only count on-chain transactions, it would make it 360 kW/t, eg. around $45/t. The reality is much worse because the hardware is not efficient so the 922 kW seems legit.

Anyway, I don’t like thinking in CO2 terms. I think massaging population with “CO2 is bad” idea is a part of a new 1984 plan.


I’m not concerned about Co2 or global warming Alarmism. If we wanted we could bring the ppm in the atmosphere back down to preindustrial levels within ten years by planting trees. Not to mention all of the co2 capture, store and filtration tech we’ve been developing for decades.

This issue is one of the biggest scams the world has ever seen.

When the solution to a problem is to spend money on green energy, green cars, green appliances, taxes etc…thats when you know your being bent over.


Economics will prove you are very wrong.


What a bizarre attitude. I know you’re an astroman but last time CO2 levels were this high we humans weren’t around.


I wonder how many Bitcoin holders who are also climate change believers, know this.


I.e. understand and accept scientific research going back 150 years that has never been disproven.


I’m not going to name names but it’s easy to find climate change charities and organizations accepting bitcoin donations.


I don’t believe this Bitcoin thing exists in the first place. Never seen one. I’m also very sceptical of that invisible stuff the elite and there lamestream media call CO2. Bunch of college education bull. One invisible certanly don’t cause another, and even if it does, its no problem.

1 Like

Few argue that the climate isn’t changing. However, we don’t know fully how much is correlation vs causation. We also don’t know what the best temperature is or how much co2 is ideal for us, let alone everything else on the planet. If we want to pin sea levels and temperatures to late 20th century amounts, I suspect we will be on a fools errand, no matter what we do.

The alarmism that the ‘damage’ will be irreversible and that we have just moments to act is straight out of the playbook of how to manipulate the masses though. Frighten the populous enough and they will do anything you ask. We do not have evidence of runaway warming and there is certainly precedent for the planet being hotter, having less ice and more co2.

It would see sensible to consider our impact on the environment as a whole though. Mass deforestation has been going on for decades and clearing yet more or it to make biofuel with net negative benefits would seem counter productive. https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.mongabay.com/2018/10/tropical-deforestation-now-emits-more-co2-than-the-eu/amp/

Perhaps if people started by eating less meat and planting more trees, the rate of co2 increase could be moderated through more natural means? It would certainly align us more closesly with our historic diet and landscape and biodiversity. It would probably help reduce obesity too, especially if those forests were used for more recreation.

I also suspect that self driving cars will have a profound effect, which is driven by consumer demand, rather than guilt. When fleets of autonomous vehicles, build to last and to be shared with privacy, remove the need for everyone to have their own, energy use will plummet. People will also be productive during their commute instead of watching the car in front. Maybe people will even realise that sharing the benefits of progress, instead of giving it all to rent seekers, means less work to do too.

I remain optimistic that humans will become more symbiotic with their environment again and I remain skeptical of doomsday scenarios trying to instil fear. Somewhere down the middle, we will probably be all right.


If you don’t know for sure what the cause is of the changing climate, isn’t it better to (try to) be on the safer side?
And maybe methane is an (even) bigger problem then CO2.


The only stable thing in a whole universe is a constant change. Trying to keep the present temperature while pretending this is the right one is a BS.

Sure, but at what cost? How much change is good and how much is bad? Would it be better if the planet was colder than it is now? How about 100, 500 years or a millennia ago? How big should the ice caps be? How high or low should the water level be?

Unless there catastrophic runaway warming is a near certainty, surely we need to define targets for these attributes and provide evidence for them?

1 Like

The overwhelming consensus of scientific community says “certainty” exists. A hammer will not hit anyone on the head to confirm though.


Really? I have yet to read it.

It is not a question of whether climate change will end life on Earth, it is a question of whether steps should be taken now to avert catastrophic events brought about by climate change or to at least plan for adaptive measures that will allow populations to absorb the consequences as painlessly as possible. We are talking about agricultural regions that will no longer be able to produce sufficiently to sustain a large portion of the providers, communities where encroaching waters will cause many people to relocate and drinking water becoming even more scarce in many parts of the world, just to name a few of the dire consequences staring us in the face. It should not take alarming calls of Armageddon to spur rational people to action.

A quick search of “scientific consensus climate change” will confirm this scientific basis.

At the top of the search results from NASA’s website: “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”


Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations

“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)


American Association for the Advancement of Science

“The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)

1 Like

What do you mean with ‘what cost’? Exaggerated green policies that costs economically? Could be in some cases (subjective of course), but also don’t forget to ask yourself: an economy at what environmental cost (if not in line)? An altered quote ‘If you really think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath whilst you count your Bitcoins’.
Like you’re asking proof if something has negative environmental effects. You could also turn it around: where is the proof something doesn’t have negative effects? If not known it goes in both directions…
Where I live I certainly did find it too hot this year: we had for the first time a day above 40 degrees in the 150 years that there are temperature measurements. And I’ve read that was on a lot of places. The least they can do is study (even more) why this is and don’t try to make it worse if possible (realistically). Because one of the problems that would be less with lower temperatures (at least where I live): water supply. And I’m pretty sure most people agree with this, like most Dutch people will find that the current sea water level is high enough :wink:


If it isn’t about humanity ending catastrophe, then we need to define targets based on evidence. So what is the ideal global temperature? What is the ideal sea level? Is it possible to plan and adapt? Is it easier or cheaper to do this, given the multi-decadal timescales outlined and the difficulty in gaining global agreement?

Is there anyone who says the climate is static, eg. climate change does not exist? I think its kind of straw man saying there are climate change deniers…

The second part is more difficult and I don’t have a strong opinion on it, but surely almost 8 billion people living on this planet have an on an environment, but do we have it in our hands or are we just 5 - 20% cause of what we are seeing? Is there any scientist who says lets say 85%+?

And again, CO2 is not a problem… its not a pollution, its a food for flowers and trees. :slight_smile: