Determinants of electronic waste generation in Bitcoin network : Evidence from the machine learning approach

Abstract Electronic waste is generating in the Bitcoin network at an alarming rate. This study identifies the determinants of electronic waste generation in the Bitcoin network using machine learning algorithms. We model the evolutionary patterns of electronic waste and carry out a predictive analytics exercise to achieve this objective. The Maximal Information Coefficient (MIC) and Generalized Mean Information Coefficient (GMIC) help to study the association structure. A series of six state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms - Gradient Boosting (GB), Regularized Random Forest (RRF), Bagging-Multiple Adaptive Regression Splines (BM), Hybrid Neuro Fuzzy Inference Systems (HYFIS), Self-Organizing Map (SOM), and Quantile Regression Neural Network (QRNN) are used separately for predictive modeling. We compare the predictive performance of all the algorithms. Statistically, the GB is a superior model followed by RRF. The performance of SOM is the least accurate. Our findings reveal that the blockchain's size, energy consumption, and the historical number of Bitcoin are the most determinants of electronic waste generation in the Bitcoin network. The overall findings bring out exciting insights into practical relevance for effectively curbing electronic waste accumulation.

[1]  Matti Mäntymäki,et al.  Why do blockchains split? An actor-network perspective on Bitcoin splits , 2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[2]  Lam Duc Khai,et al.  A fast approach for bitcoin blockchain cryptocurrency mining system , 2020, Integr..

[3]  Indranil Ghosh,et al.  Analysis of temporal pattern, causal interaction and predictive modeling of financial markets using nonlinear dynamics, econometric models and machine learning algorithms , 2019, Appl. Soft Comput..

[4]  Teuvo Kohonen,et al.  Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps , 2004, Biological Cybernetics.

[5]  Chiwei Su,et al.  Financial implications of fourth industrial revolution: Can bitcoin improve prospects of energy investment? , 2020, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[6]  A.W.G. de Vries,et al.  Renewable Energy Will Not Solve Bitcoin’s Sustainability Problem , 2019, Joule.

[7]  Michael Mitzenmacher,et al.  Detecting Novel Associations in Large Data Sets , 2011, Science.

[8]  Jinqing Peng,et al.  Energy consumption of cryptocurrency mining: A study of electricity consumption in mining cryptocurrencies , 2019, Energy.

[9]  Nitin Upadhyay,et al.  Demystifying blockchain: A critical analysis of challenges, applications and opportunities , 2020, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[10]  A.W.G. de Vries,et al.  Bitcoin boom: What rising prices mean for the network’s energy consumption , 2021 .

[11]  J. Truby Decarbonizing Bitcoin: Law and policy choices for reducing the energy consumption of Blockchain technologies and digital currencies , 2018, Energy Research & Social Science.

[12]  Albert Y. Zomaya,et al.  Blockchain for smart communities: Applications, challenges and opportunities , 2019, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[13]  Iddo Bentov,et al.  Proof of Activity: Extending Bitcoin's Proof of Work via Proof of Stake [Extended Abstract]y , 2014, PERV.

[14]  Debojyoti Das,et al.  Bitcoin’s energy consumption: Is it the Achilles heel to miner’s revenue? , 2020 .

[15]  George C. Runger,et al.  Gene selection with guided regularized random forest , 2012, Pattern Recognit..

[16]  T. Kohonen Self-organized formation of topographically correct feature maps , 1982 .

[17]  Dylan Bugden,et al.  Energy consumption boomtowns in the United States: Community responses to a cryptocurrency boom , 2019, Energy Research & Social Science.

[18]  Josep M. Guerrero,et al.  Blockchain for power systems: Current trends and future applications , 2020 .

[19]  Jim Thatcher,et al.  Computational parasites and hydropower: A political ecology of Bitcoin mining on the Columbia River , 2019, Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space.

[20]  Bitcoin and its mining on the equilibrium path , 2020 .

[21]  Nikola K. Kasabov,et al.  HyFIS: adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference systems and their application to nonlinear dynamical systems , 1999, Neural Networks.

[22]  Indranil Ghosh,et al.  A granular deep learning approach for predicting energy consumption , 2020, Appl. Soft Comput..

[23]  J. Friedman Multivariate adaptive regression splines , 1990 .

[24]  Alex J. Cannon Quantile regression neural networks: Implementation in R and application to precipitation downscaling , 2011, Comput. Geosci..

[25]  Yoram Singer,et al.  Improved Boosting Algorithms Using Confidence-rated Predictions , 1998, COLT' 98.

[26]  Wei Zhou,et al.  Delegated Proof of Stake With Downgrade: A Secure and Efficient Blockchain Consensus Algorithm With Downgrade Mechanism , 2019, IEEE Access.

[27]  Constantin Zopounidis,et al.  Bitcoin price forecasting with neuro-fuzzy techniques , 2019, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[28]  Nikola Simidjievski,et al.  Predicting long-term population dynamics with bagging and boosting of process-based models , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[29]  Sang Hoon Kang,et al.  A time–frequency comovement and causality relationship between Bitcoin hashrate and energy commodity markets , 2020 .