Jordan Peterson’s Mind Blown By Bitcoin Mining in Real Time | Bitcoin Monetizes Stranded Cheap Energy No Matter The Geography | Implications – Infinite | Nov 15th 2021 | Orange Pilled By Saifedean

Jordan Peterson’s Mind Blown By Bitcoin Mining in Real Time | Bitcoin Monetizes Stranded Cheap Energy No Matter The Geography | Implications – Infinite | Nov 15th 2021 | Orange Pilled By Saifedean

Jordan Peterson’s Mind Blown By Bitcoin Mining in Real Time | Bitcoin Monetizes Stranded Cheap Energy No Matter The Geography | Implications – Infinite | Nov 15th 2021 | Orange Pilled By Saifedean from Bitcoin

View Reddit by Fiach_DubhView Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings


  1. Monetize yes, transferring wealth easily yes but it´s not transferring electricity per se.. or i´m missing something too. It will take me much longer to think his all through than Mr. Peterson for sure.

  2. I think of bitcoin as a “gold vault in the sky”
    – When it stores a few millions dollars in value for a small group of people, it needs a small “army” of energy to protect it
    – When it stores a few billions dollars equivalent for 1% of the world population, it uses more energy, stronger army = harder to attack
    – When it stores trillions of dollars equivalent for a large majority of world population, it will need the strongest army in the world in the form of electricity/ encrypted energy

    And we can use remote, stranded energy to guard it.

    Oil/gas flaring is one example, currently able to power 6x the current Bitcoin network.

    Renewable energy not used at night and need to be thrown away is another example.

    Surplus renewable energy thrown away in China can power the whole Bitcoin network. If it’s not used, it’s thrown away, you can make less renewables than needed and supplement the grid with coal to meet peak demand, or go renewable 100% using mining as load balancers.

    It’s truely mind blowing.

  3. His understanding seems to be “Bitcoin is a way to move electricity via internet”.

    Am I wrong in thinking that that’s what Peterson things at the end of this conversation? If so, his mind is blown all right but not for the right reasons. In fact, if anybody said so people would laugh.

    EDIT: I think I am wrong. He does say towards the end “move the *value*”.

  4. Wait, how can Bitcoin be a way to transfer energy? I dont get this point at all, I think it can store the energy into Bitcoin and then use the Bitcoin for monetary purposes, but not as energy storage… Thats confused.

  5. “And that is how humanity advanced from a Type 0.7 civilization to a Type 1 when they learned how to utilize all the energy resources from their home planet sustainably.” A future excerpt from a history/engineering/energy course taught along with this video.

  6. Wait until he learns about flaring capture and how BTC mining can be used to make green energy projects profitable. It’s going to play a critical role in solving the climate crisis.

  7. I mean, honestly, its scetchy af to think about it this way.

    In some sense its true what they state. It suddenly makes sense to use sources of energy that are so far away from any grid that its not feasible to connect them to it. So with bitcoin you can indeed monetize that energy source. So that statement is definitely true.

    But, as always, there are some issues. One is that an energy source must not be renewable/green to be cheap and useful for bitcoin mining. This means that you may add emissions that would not have been there in the first place. Whether the energy that is turned into bitcoin is well used is a different story and is up for debate; however it should be clear that many people do consider anything that is not immediately live-saving is not worth spending non-renewable energy on. I am very certain that in the future, people dont want to use anything that is associated with carbon emissions. That trend is very clear and its coming. So one needs to be very careful because I dont think the bitcoin network can see major adoption if its not clear where the energy that powers the network comes from.

    Secondly, you have to ask yourself what is the purpose of energy. Is energy production for the purpose of producing energy the actualy goal; or is it to use the energy for something productive, something that “makes sense”. Obviously, the energy that is turned into bitcoin increases entropy and cannot be converted back. Putting that energy into a battery instead, transporting the battery from A to B and then spending the energy on place B infers costs but you have literally the energy on place B now and not just a substitute for it which in fact requires even more energy to be of any use. So in a sense, its complete nonsense to state bitcoin is a substitute for energy because it requires even more energy to use it. Its a never ending cycle.

    I think people should stop trying to make something out of it which it isnt. It has the potential for the best store of value and international settlementlayer for value humanity ever had, lets see if bitcoin can make it to do that. Making use of energy on a distant place I mean okay, you could mine bitcoin. Or you put up a big datacenter/data storage facility and use the energy to power the servers. Or in the future you build a fully autonomous facility where robots construct robots that build robots who teach robots how to teach and build other robots. Its all kind of the same which is you turn energy into something useful. You dont need bitcoin to do that. Also, how many places on earth do we really know that have a huge potential for a renewable energy source and are not being used already? How many geothermal power plants do you know that are ran on a distant site not connected to any grid?

  8. The fallacy here is that you cannot MOVE the electricity. Sure, you can USE the cheap, stranded power, and harvest the VALUE of the cheap electricity, but that doesn’t move the electricity to anywhere else just the VALUE of it. So, in the end, you need more electricity total, not less. It is a power drain, sure it motivates people to find inexpensive ways to generate power, but saying that using more electricity is a benefit to society is simply not correct, in general. There will be isolated cases of preventing flaring, but other uses are a net drain on the energy supply.

    I still think bitcoin goes up a LOT from here, but the whole “bitcoin energy use is good for humanity” is simply a lie. Mining is an industry, just like creating aluminum, smelting steel, building cars, etc. Power goes in, product comes out.

  9. Bitcoin stores the value of excess energy. It’s amazing. Power plants waste most of their electricity because they have to produce enough for the peak hours, but what about the 22 other hours, all that energy goes to waste. Instead, mine BTC, store the value.

    You literally can’t go wrong with BTC.

  10. I’m sorry but this just seems to be blatantly ignorant armchair engineering and economics.

    Bitcoin doesn’t lower the cost of “fiat’s subsidized” electricity by rewarding low cost energy on two scales:
    1. Bitcoin _increases_ low cost energy demand. (Also, everyone wants low cost energy already, nothing new)
    2. Alternatively bitcoin _increases_ demand for more efficient mining rigs which have physical limits that the general market is already dealing with.

    Bitcoin and other mined cryptocurrencies are a parasite on critical infrastructure.

  11. I think most of the people in this feed are smarter than me and maybe I’m not grasping the full concept .. but isn’t this video a bit misleading?

    It seems positioned to make it seem like energy that would have typically been too remote from the grid for society to capture can now be used – but that doesn’t really make sense to me and most of the comments below seem to agree that this video is not talking about a physical transfer of energy.

    I can see how this benefits those in remote areas who can now financially benefit through mining, but I’m having trouble tracking to how this impacts the price of energy globally when no new supply is being created… just consumed by the miner and converted to BTC (the same thing that happens when any miner, anywhere, is mining regardless of location).

    What am I missing?

What do you think?

Seen in Kansas City…BTC Wine

Gold (XAUUSD) Price May Bounce Off $1,873 Resistance Level – – Daily Cryptocurrency and FX News

Gold (XAUUSD) Price May Bounce Off $1,873 Resistance Level – – Daily Cryptocurrency and FX News