This article is featured in Bitcoin Magazine’s “The Halving Issue”. Click here to get your copy. It is also report #1 of the “FUD Fighters” series powered by HIVE Digital Technologies LTD.
Forget Bad Research: A detailed analysis of a bitcoin mining study led to a traumatic response.
“We must confess that our adversaries have a marked advantage over us in the discussion. In very few words they can announce a half-truth; and in order to demonstrate that it is incomplete, we are obliged to have recourse to long and dry dissertations.” — Frédéric Bastiat, Economic Sophisms, First Series (1845)
“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.” — Williamson (2016) on Brandolini’s Law
For too long, the world has had to endure the fallout of subpar academic research on bitcoin mining’s energy use and environmental impact. The outcome of this flawed research has resulted in shocking news headlines that have influenced some individuals negatively. To prevent further exposure to such misleading studies, I dedicated my time to analyzing a research study from the United Nations University, recently published in Earth’s Future by the American Geophysical Union. Only those brave enough may proceed to the following paragraphs, while others can return to monitoring the price charts.
This analysis challenges the validity of prominent research studies on bitcoin mining energy consumption, highlighting the need for better methodologies and accurate data to draw informed conclusions. Notable researchers like Jonathan Koomey and Eric Masanet have long highlighted the flaws in energy modeling used in such studies and have advocated for a bottom-up approach that considers factors like IT device energy efficiency and demand trends. By debunking flawed research papers, we aim to raise awareness of the importance of rigorous and reliable research in the field of bitcoin mining.
My analysis focused on a study by Chamanara et al., which presented several methodological flaws and inaccuracies in its calculations. The study tried to estimate bitcoin’s energy usage and environmental impact using outdated data and flawed modeling techniques. By breaking down the study’s calculations and comparing them to more recent data, I highlighted discrepancies that undermine the study’s credibility and validity.
… (additional content omitted for brevity)
If you enjoyed this article, visit btcpolicy.org to read the full technical analysis of the study by Chamanara et al. (2023).
This is a guest post by Margot Paez. The opinions expressed are solely hers and do not reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
